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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed June 25th, 2025 has been entered. Examiner acknowledges the cancellation of claim 5. Claims 1-4 and 6-14 remain pending in the application.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed February 25th, 2025. Therefore, the objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have not overcome the 112b rejection of claim 1 and 2 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed February 25th, 2025, therefore these rejections have been maintained. Further, as the amendments to claim 12 now present claim 12 as dependent upon claim 1 the rejection has been expanded to claims 12 and 13 due to their dependency upon claim 1.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the 112b rejection of claim 11 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed February 25th, 2025, therefore the 112b rejection of claim 11 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome every 102(a)(2) and 103 rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed February 25th, 2025. Therefore, the 102(a)(2) and 103 rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration in light of these amendments, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of 35 USC § 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 25th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant notes on 7 of 12 and following on page 8 that claim 1 recites steps of providing an initial portion of water, treating the initial portion of water, causing evaporation of the treated water, and adding make-up water thus providing active steps of water management in an evaporative cooling system and therefore that method steps of water management have been accomplished. However, the claim itself does not recite at which step of the method the water management in an evaporative cooling system comprising: a high temperature element requiring cooling; an evaporative system comprising an evaporative cooling system container, and a water based coolant recirculating between the high temperature element and the evaporative system has been accomplished.
Applicant has argued on p. 10 par. 1 regarding the rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 USC§ 103, that claim 1 and 2 are not obvious over Lawlar as informed by Atlas Scientific and Waternation.co.uk. Examiner disagrees. Please see 103 rejection of newly amended claims 1 and 2 below for greater detail.
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 1, 2, 12 and 13 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites a method of water management in an evaporative cooling system comprising: a high temperature element requiring cooling; an evaporative system comprising an evaporative cooling system container, and a water based coolant recirculating between the high temperature element and the evaporative system. Though many steps are recited, it is not made clear by which step or device the water management in an evaporative cooling system comprising: a high temperature element requiring cooling; an evaporative system comprising an evaporative cooling system container, and a water based coolant recirculating between the high temperature element and the evaporative system has been accomplished. Claims 2, 12 and 13 are rejected due to their dependency upon claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawlar (US3805880) in view of Atlas Scientific ("The Resistivity of Water Explained") and Waternation.co.uk ("Demineralised water specifications").
Regarding claim 1, Lawlar discloses a method of water management in an evaporative cooling system comprising: a high temperature element requiring cooling (Lawlar "plant heat load" #9 Fig. 1 and col. 4 line 49); an evaporative system (Lawlar "cooling tower'' #1) comprising an evaporative cooling system container (Lawlar col. 4 lines 40-41 “reservoir for cooled water”), and a water based coolant (Lawlar "cooled water'' #3) recirculating between the high temperature element and the evaporative system, the method comprising: providing an initial portion of water at a first amount and quality to the evaporative cooling system container (col. 4 lines 57-58); treating the initial portion of water in the evaporative cooling system container with at least one chemical (Lawlar claim 4 and vessels #13 and 14) and reducing the organic and inorganic contamination and the conductive ion concentration to produce a treated water (Lawlar col. 4-5 disclose the use of sodium zeolite water softeners followed by additives such as chlorine gas supplied by vessels 13 and 14 which reduce these components to produce a treated water); causing evaporation of the treated water to reduce the volume of the treated water from a first amount of treated water to a second amount of treated water in the evaporative cooling system container (col. 4 lines 6-13); and adding make-up water to the treated water in the evaporative cooling system container to increase the volume of the total water (col. 4 lines 14-21) in the evaporative cooling system container without discarding substantially any of the treated water (Lawlar does not disclose discarding water, only solids).
Lawlar does not explicitly disclose wherein the water contains an organic and inorganic contamination of less than 20ppb total organic carbon (TOC) and wherein the water contains a conductive ion concentration resulting in resistivity equal to or greater than 0.02 MΩ·cm. However, Lawlar does disclose that the source of water "may be naturally occurring soft water, rain water, condensed water, demineralized water or water otherwise treated" (Lawlar col. 4 lines 64-67). Rain water varies in carbon content depending on location and season however, the amount found is below 20ppb. In addition, resistivity of rain water is around 20,000 ohms (per Atlas Scientific which relates to 0.02 MΩ·cm) while values of demineralized water run between 1-2 μS/cm conductivity (per Waternation.co.uk which relates to 0.5-1 MΩ·cm resistivity) and below 50ppb TOC content. Lawlar discloses that the method of water management in an evaporative cooling system runs "continuously recirculating the aqueous coolant without blowdown of the circulating coolant" (Lawlar col. 4 lines 12-13) while also attempting to minimize the additives used to treat the later and reduce the water hardness. Lawlar emphasizes the desire for high quality starting and make-up water for example, “the softer the water used both for start-up and make-up, the better” (Lawlar col. 4 lines 31-32).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, motivated by Lawler’s desire to minimize scaling and operate without blowdown, to employ the highest available purity demineralized water, which inherently meets the claimed TOC <20 ppb and resistivity ≥0.02 MΩ∙cm. Selection of a purer grade of the same known class (demineralized water) is a routine design choice.
Regarding claim 2, Lawlar in view of Atlas Scientific and Waternation.co.uk discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the chemical is a corrosion inhibitor, a biocide, an antiscalant or a dispersant. (Lawlar col. 5 line 5).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawlar (US3805880) in view of Atlas Scientific ("The Resistivity of Water Explained") and Waternation.co.uk ("Demineralised water specifications") as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tempest (US20130213888A1).
Regarding claim 12, Lawlar in view of Atlas Scientific and Waternation.co.uk discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: filtering a full stream or a diverted portion of the treated water from a first location of a condenser flow leaving the evaporative cooling system container to remove contaminants and returning the filtered stream water to the condenser loop flow at a second location downstream from the first location and returning it to the evaporative cooling system container (Lawlar col. 5 lines 20-25).
Lawlar does not disclose filtering such that the water meets quality criteria of <5 SDI units and turbidity <2 NTU; and returning the filtered stream water that meets the quality criteria.
Tempest discloses a method of treating recirculating water in an evaporative cooling system, the method comprising: filtering the full stream or a diverted portion of recirculating water (Tempest par. [0030]) to remove contaminants such that the water meets quality criteria of <5 SDI units and turbidity <2 NTU (Tempest par. [0028]); and returning the filtered stream water that meets quality criteria to the condenser loop flow ( described by Tempest in par. [0054] and illustrated best in Fig. 1B).
Lawlar recognizes that even with the soft/demineralized make-up water and bleed filtration, solids and foulants accumulate in the cooling loop. Lawlar notes the importance of filtering and recycling water to avoid blowdown while keeping the system balanced. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the industry-accepted water quality standards of SDI and turbidity explicitly provided by Tempest for evaluating whether filtration is sufficient to prevent fouling and maintain efficiency. A person of ordinary skill seeking to implement Lawlar’s recycle/filtration scheme would have been motivated to adopt Tempest’s explicit SDI/turbidity benchmark as performance criteria for the filter because SDI and turbidity were known objective metrics to quantify “clean water” quality and using those criteria would allow consistent monitoring, reduce membrane fouling and prolong system life. Substituting a specific known benchmark for Lawlar’s generic “solids removal” is a predictable use of prior art elements to achieve the same purpose.
Regarding claim 13, Lawlar in view of Atlas Scientific and Waternation.co.uk and further in view of Tempest discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the contaminants originate from one or more sources, including air and piping (Tempest par. [0039] discloses that some examples include air stripping which includes contamination from both these sources).
Claims 3, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawlar (US3805880) in view of Atlas Scientific ("The Resistivity of Water Explained") and Waternation.co.uk ("Demineralised water specifications") and further in view of Tempest (US20130213888A1).
Regarding claim 3, Lawlar discloses an apparatus for evaporative cooling system water management, the apparatus comprising: an evaporative cooling system ("cooling tower" #1), a heat source ("plant heat load" #9 Fig. 1 and col. 4 line 49) and a water recirculation loop fluidically coupling the evaporative cooling system and the heat source such that the heat source is capable of receiving cooling water supply from the evaporative cooling system via the water recirculation loop (Illustrated in Fig.1 and described in Lawlar abstract); a purified water feed system having an incoming water inlet for receiving purified water and fluidically coupled to the evaporative cooling system to provide water to the evaporative cooling system (Lawlar col. 5 lines 23-24); a treatment system (Lawlar sodium zeolite softeners 12 and vessels 13 and 14) fluidically coupled to the evaporative cooling system to provide at least one of corrosion inhibitors, biocides, antiscalants and/or dispersants (Lawlar col. 5 line 5) to purified water in the evaporative cooling system and to reduce the organic and inorganic contamination and the conductive ion concentration of the water to produce a treated water (Lawlar col. 4-5 disclose the use of sodium zeolite water softeners followed by additives such as chlorine gas supplied by vessels 13 and 14 which reduce these components to produce a treated water); and a water filtration system comprising a side-stream filter (Lawlar col. 5 lines 20-24) fluidically coupled to an output of the heat source and an input of the evaporative cooling system, for filtering water from the heat source to remove waste and provide the filtered water to the evaporative cooling system.
Lawlar does not explicitly disclose the received purified water having an organic and inorganic contamination of less than 20ppb total organic carbon (TOC) and a conductive ion concentration resulting in resistivity equal to or greater than 0.02 MΩ·cm. Lawlar also does not disclose a full-stream filter. However, Lawlar does disclose that the source of water "may be naturally occurring soft water, rain water, condensed water, demineralized water or water otherwise treated" (Lawlar col. 4 lines 64-67). Rain water varies in carbon content depending on location and season however, the amount found is below 20ppb. In addition, resistivity of rain water is around 20,000 ohms (per Atlas Scientific which relates to 0.02 MΩ·cm) while values of demineralized water run between 1-2 μS/cm conductivity (perWaternation.co.uk which relates to 0.5-1 MΩ·cm resistivity). Lawlar discloses that the method of water management in an evaporative cooling system runs "continuously recirculating the aqueous coolant without blowdown of the circulating coolant" (Lawlar col. 4 lines 12-13) while also attempting to minimize the additives used to treat the later and reduce the water hardness. Lawlar emphasizes the desire for high quality starting and make-up water for example, “the softer the water used both for start-up and make-up, the better” (Lawlar col. 4 lines 31-32).
Tempest discloses a system for evaporative cooling system water management, the system comprising: filtering the full stream or a diverted portion of recirculating water (Tempest par. [0030]) to remove contaminants such that the water meets quality criteria of <5 SDI units and turbidity <2 NTU (Tempest par. [0028]); and returning the filtered stream water that meets quality criteria to the condenser loop flow ( described by Tempest in par. [0054] and illustrated best in Fig. 1B).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, motivated by Lawler’s desire to minimize scaling and operate without blowdown, to employ the highest available purity demineralized water, which inherently meets the claimed TOC <20 ppb and resistivity ≥0.02 MΩ∙cm. Selection of a purer grade of the same known class (demineralized water) is a routine design choice. Further, Tempest teaches filtration to strict SDI/turbidity levels and automated monitoring. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these well-known control and filtration practices with Lawlar’s recycle approach to provide predictable improvement in water management.
Regarding claim 4, Lawlar in view of Atlas Scientific and Waternation.co.uk and further in view of Tempest discloses the apparatus of claim 3, wherein at least one of the side stream filter and the full stream filter is backwashed (Lawlar col. 5 lines 41-42) using water from an external source to preserve chemicals in the system.
Regarding claim 6, Lawlar in view of Atlas Scientific and Waternation.co.uk and further in view of Tempest discloses the apparatus of claim 3, further comprising at least one sensor for sensing at least one of conductivity, oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), pH (column 5, lines 10-12 describes maintaining pH between 6.5 to 8.5 preferably between 7.0 and 8.2 so at least one means for sensing pH is implicitly used), silt density index (SDI), turbidity, TOC, and resistivity.
Claims 7-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawlar (US3805880) in view of Atlas Scientific ("The Resistivity of Water Explained") and Waternation.co.uk ("Demineralised water specifications") and further in view of Tempest (US20130213888A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Johnson (US-20090277841-A1).
Regarding claim 7, Lawlar in view of Atlas Scientific and Waternation.co.uk and further in view of Tempest discloses the apparatus of claim 3.
Lawlar does not disclose the apparatus further comprising at least one sensor or instrument to monitor the concentration of treatment chemicals directly or by measuring concentration of a certain tracing compound.
Johnson discloses an apparatus for evaporative cooling system water management, further comprising at least one sensor or instrument to monitor the concentration of treatment chemicals directly or by measuring concentration of a certain tracing compound. (Johnson claim 3 and abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the sensors disclosed by Johnson with the apparatus of Lawlar. Each of these inventions are interested in optimizing the performance of recirculating cooling systems with the intention of eliminating or at least reducing blowdown. There would have been motivation to combine these aspects as disclosed by Johnson, the improvements of adding the sensors to monitor the concentration of treatment additives as in the words of Johnson, " ... processes to remove scaling and corrosive tendencies from the water in recirculating cooling water systems. Of particular importance, is to provide methods of treating the water to produce an ideal mixture of ionic constituents so as not to require addition of makeup water or excessive blow down." This addition would have led to the expected result of preventing blowdown while also optimizing and reducing the need of additives beyond what would be required to optimize the system.
Regarding claim 8, Lawlar in view of Atlas Scientific and Waternation.co.uk and further in view of Tempest and Johnson discloses the apparatus of claim 7, wherein at least one of the sensors is in the purified water feed system (Johnson abstract describes that the measurements are taken for the makeup water stream which passes through a weak acid cation exchange resin and a weak base anion exchange resin to purify the stream and measurements shown in tables #310 and #316 in Fig. 3 confirm the sensors taking these measurements are located within the purified water stream) for measuring at least one of TOC and resistivity. (Johnson abstract includes conductance from which resistivity may be derived. Discussion of monitoring and adjusting CO2 and other carbon species in par. [0020] implies that some means of measuring carbon is also present.)
Regarding claim 9, Lawlar in view of Atlas Scientific and Waternation.co.uk and further in view of Tempest and Johnson discloses the apparatus of claim 3, further comprising a processor (Johnson par. [0032]), communicatively coupled to a least one of the purified water feed system, the chemical treatment system and/or the water filtration system for controlling operation of at least of one of the purified water feed system, the chemical treatment system and/or the water filtration system. (Johnson lists each of these as well in par. [0020]).
Regarding claim 10, Lawlar in view of Atlas Scientific and Waternation.co.uk and further in view of Tempest and Johnson discloses the apparatus of claim 9, wherein the processor is configured to: direct ingress of the water at a first amount (Johnson par. [0020] "adjusting raw water bypass into the system"), where the water contains a very low amount of organic and inorganic contamination, less than 20 ppb of TOC or equivalent of greater than 0.02 MΩ∙cm of conductive ions (Lawlar suggests highest quality water, see rejection of claim 3); direct addition of one or more treatment chemicals (Johnson "adjusting additive injection" par. [0020]) that could include: corrosion inhibitors, biocides (Lawlar col. 5 line 5), antiscalants, or dispersants; direct usage of the water to absorb heat (Johnson "controlling a blowdown circuit" par. [0020]), which dissipates as the water evaporates to a second amount equal or less than the first amount (inherent in the process); and direct replenishment of the second amount of water to the first amount without intentional discarding the one or more treatment chemicals that could include: corrosion inhibitors, biocides, antiscalants, or dispersants.
Regarding claim 11, Lawlar in view of Atlas Scientific and Waternation.co.uk and further in view of Tempest and Johnson discloses a method for evaporative cooling system water management, comprising: directing ingress of water at a first amount to a container (Johnson par. [0020] "adjusting raw water bypass into the system"), wherein the water contains less than 20 ppb of TOC and a conductive ion concentration resulting in resistivity of greater than or equal to 0.02 MΩ·cm (Lawlar suggests highest quality water, see rejection of claim 3) according to sensors measuring one or more of the following: TOC and conductivity (Johnson claim 3 and abstract); directing addition of one or more treatment chemicals (Johnson "adjusting additive injection" par. [0020]) to the water that could include: corrosion inhibitors, biocides (Lawlar col. 5 line 5), antiscalants, or dispersants, according to sensors measuring one or more of the following: conductivity, ORP, pH, tracer concentration, silt density index (SDI), turbidity, TOC, and resistivity (Johnson abstract) and reducing the organic and inorganic contamination and reducing the conductive ion concentration to produce a treated water (Lawlar col. 4-5 disclose the use of sodium zeolite water softeners followed by additives such as chlorine gas supplied by vessels 13 and 14 which reduce these components to produce a treated water); directing usage of the treated water to absorb heat (Johnson "controlling a blowdown circuit" par. [0020]), which water evaporates to a second amount less than the first amount (inherent in the system); and directing replenishment of the second amount of water to the first amount without discarding the one or more treatment chemicals (Lawlar col. 4 lines 14-21) that could include: corrosion inhibitors, biocides, antiscalants, or dispersants.
Regarding claim 14, Lawlar in view of Atlas Scientific and Waternation.co.uk and further in view of Tempest and Johnson discloses the apparatus of claim 3, further comprising at least one controller having circuitry communicatively coupled to the side stream filter and/or the full-stream filter (Johnson par. [0032]” operable for integration with one or more application-specific integrated circuits”), the at least one controller configured to: direct ingress of recirculating water from the water recirculation loop (Johnson "controlling a blowdown circuit" par. [0020]); direct a water stream through the side stream and/or the full-stream filter to remove contaminants (Lawlar col. 5 lines 20-24) such that the water meets quality criteria of <5 SDI units and turbidity <2 NTU (Tempest par. [0028]); and direct the filtered stream water that meets quality criteria back to the water recirculation loop (shown in Lawlar Fig.).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM ADDISON GEISBERT whose telephone number is (703)756-5497. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00 EDT.
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, Bobby RAMDHANIE can be reached at (571)270-3240. 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.
/W.A.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779