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 Status
Rejected Claims: 21 and 23-39
Cancelled Claims: 1-20 and 22
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 30 APRIL 2026 has been entered.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the amendment of claims 21, 23-24, and 29, the cancellation of claim 22, and the addition of new claims 36-39 have been acknowledged.
In view of the amendment to claims 21 and 29, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been modified to account for the newly added claim limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 30 APRIL 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that Dubach, used to teach the rotary separator of instant claims 21 and 29, does not teach that the rotary separator screens are cylindrical and rotate around an inclined axis and rather teaches conical screens rotating around a flat horizontal axis. Therefore, instant claims 21 and 29 are allowable (Arguments filed 30 APRIL 2026, Page 9 to Page 11, Paragraph 2).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to instant claims 21 and 29 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues, regarding newly added instant claim 36, that Dubach does not teach the inlet feed located on a first end because Dubach teaches that the feed pipe allows material to enter down the entire length of the drum rather than only at one end. Therefore instant claim 36 is allowable (Arguments filed 30 APRIL 2026, Page 11, Paragraph 3 to Page 13, Paragraph 2).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to instant claim 36 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that the dependent claims are allowable because instant claims 21, 29, and 36 are allowable (Arguments filed 30 APRIL 2026, Page 11, Page 13, Paragraph 3).
Regarding Applicant’s argument, the dependent claims are not allowable because instant claims 21, 29, and 36 are not allowable.
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 21, 23-24, 26-27, 29-31, 33-34, and 36-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Othmer US Patent No. US 3250081 A (hereinafter Othmer) in view of Dubach US Patent No. US 2748951 A (hereinafter Dubach) in view of Sanders et al US Patent No. US 5894936 A (hereinafter Sanders).
Regarding Claim 21, Othmer teaches a process of an invention which crystallizes solvent from a solution and separates the crystals where the solvent is normally water and fresh water is removed from saline water (i.e., a water treatment system for removing salt from a feed brine, the water treatment system comprising; Col. 1, Lines 9-30) where the freezer (i.e., a primary freezing chamber) is used to contact seawater (i.e., configured to receive the feed brine) with liquid butane as a refrigerant, at a temperature below 0°C (i.e., and a cooled intermediate-cold-liquid (ICL) connected to the primary freezing chamber, wherein the cooled ICL and the feed brine are combined and mixed within the primary freezing chamber), such that the butane evaporates and ice crystals form in the water phase and then the slurry of ice crystals (i.e., forming a mixture comprising solid ice particles and a liquid component) and brine is passed to an ice separator which may be a continuous centrifuge (i.e., and a rotary separator configured to separate the solid ice particles and the liquid component of the mixture after receiving the mixture from the primary freezing chamber), particularly if the plant capacity is less than about 2,000 gallons per hour (Col. 4, Lines 10-37).
Othmer does not teach wherein the rotary separator comprises an outer housing within which is contained (1) a rotatable outer filter tube having a wall comprising outer filter tube openings, (2) a rotatable intermediate filter tube having a wall comprising intermediate filter tube openings, and (3) a rotatable inner filter tube having a wall comprising inner filter tube openings, wherein the rotatable intermediate filter tube is positioned within the rotatable outer filter tube about a common axis, and the rotatable inner filter tube is positioned within the rotatable intermediate filter tube about the common axis, and wherein the inner filter tube openings are larger than the intermediate filter tube openings, and the intermediate filter tube openings are larger than the outer filter tube openings, and wherein the rotatable inner filter tube is longer than the rotatable intermediate filter tube, the rotatable intermediate filter tube is longer than the rotatable outer filter tube, and the rotatable outer filter tube is longer than the outer housing.
However, Dubach teaches the use of several rotary filter drums, arranged concentric around a common axle in which the drums are arranged in such a spaced relation that the liquid flows from the sieving jacket more adjacent to the drum axis and into the inner side of the next following outer drum wherein the drums with increasing distance from the drum axis possess decreasing passage openings (i.e., and wherein the inner filter tube openings are larger than the intermediate filter tube openings, and the intermediate filter tube openings are larger than the outer filter tube openings; Col. 2, Lines 38-51) and the length of the drums decreases from the innermost drum to the housing (i.e., wherein the rotatable inner filter tube is longer than the rotatable intermediate filter tube, the rotatable intermediate filter tube is longer than the rotatable outer filter tube, and the rotatable outer filter tube is longer than the outer housing; Fig. 8) with conical sieving drums (Fig. 8, #46”, 47”, 48”) surrounded by a housing (i.e., wherein the rotary separator comprises an outer housing within which is contained (1) a rotatable outer filter tube having a wall comprising outer filter tube openings, (2) a rotatable intermediate filter tube having a wall comprising intermediate filter tube openings, and (3) a rotatable inner filter tube having a wall comprising inner filter tube openings, wherein the rotatable intermediate filter tube is positioned within the rotatable outer filter tube about a common axis, and the rotatable inner filter tube is positioned within the rotatable intermediate filter tube about the common axis; Fig. 8, #49; Col. 4, Lines 28-43) for the purpose of practically completely preventing the soiling or clogging-up of the sieve and a very high filtering efficiency is assured (Col. 3, Lines 58-61). Dubach further teaches in Fig. 8 that the sieving drums are conically formed or cylindrically formed (Col. 4, Lines 40-44).
Dubach is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a device for separating solid particles from liquids (Col. 1, Lines 15-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the ice separator as taught by Othmer with the rotary filter drums as taught by Dubach because the rotary filter drums would prevent the sieves from clogging-up and assure a very high filtering efficiency.
Othmer in view of Dubach does not teach wherein the common axis is inclined at an angle from horizontal.
However, Sanders teaches a cylindrical drum separator can have an axis of rotation (Fig. 4, #14) forming an acute angle with respect to horizontal (i.e., wherein the common axis is inclined at an angle from horizontal) such that gravity can move slurry through the drum and an alternative version wherein the drum (Fig. 5, #80) may be conical with an axis of rotation (Fig. 5, #14) remaining generally horizontal so that the angle of the conical drum can help the slurry move through the drum (Figs. 4-5; Col. 5, Lines 16-26). This shows that conical drums spinning on a horizontal axis are interchangeable with cylindrical drums spinning on an inclined axis.
Sanders is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to introducing a slurry into a rotating drum with openings allowing smaller material to pass through (Col. 1, Lines 1-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the ice separator made obvious by Othmer in view of Dubach with the inclined cylindrical separator as taught by Sanders because the inclined cylindrical separator is a known alternative for using gravity to aid in progressing slurry down the rotating drum.
Regarding Claim 23, Sanders further teaches the cylindrical drum separator can have an axis of rotation (Fig. 4, #14) forming an acute angle with respect to horizontal (i.e., wherein the angle from horizontal is in a range of 5° to about 75°; Col. 5, Lines 16-26). Othmer in view of Dubach in view of Sanders does not explicitly teach wherein the angle from horizontal is in a range of 5° to about 75°. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for claimed ranges that overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976))(See MPEP 2144.05(I)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to have selected the angle that corresponds with the claimed range when experimenting with the angle made obvious by Othmer in view of Dubach in view of Sanders.
Regarding Claim 24, Sanders further teaches the cylindrical drum separator can have an axis of rotation (Fig. 4, #14) forming an acute angle with respect to horizontal (i.e., wherein the angle from horizontal is in a range of 10° to about 60°; Col. 5, Lines 16-26). Othmer in view of Dubach in view of Sanders does not explicitly teach wherein the angle from horizontal is in a range of 10° to about 60°. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for claimed ranges that overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976))(See MPEP 2144.05(I)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to have selected the angle that corresponds with the claimed range when experimenting with the angle made obvious by Othmer in view of Dubach in view of Sanders.
Regarding Claim 26, Othmer further teaches that tanks are not shown but may be required for the storage of components at either intermediary or terminal points (i.e., further comprising a liquid recovery tank; Col. 8, Lines 54-60).
Dubach further teaches that the sieving drums are surrounded by a housing that is provided with a discharge (i.e., configured to receive the liquid components collected by the outer housing; Fig. 8, #50; Col. 4, Lines 28-31).
Regarding Claim 27, Othmer further teaches that tanks are not shown but may be required for the storage of components at either intermediary or terminal points (i.e., further comprising a first ice recovery tank, a second ice recovery tank, and a third ice recovery tank; Col. 8, Lines 54-60).
Dubach further teaches catching funnels (Fig. 8, #51, 52, 53) for the solid particles retained in the respective drums with corresponding discharge taps (i.e., configured to receive solid ice particles discharged from the rotatable inner filter tube, configured to receive solid ice particles discharged from the rotatable intermediate filter tube, configured to receive solid ice particles discharged from the rotatable outer filter tube; Fig. 8, #54, 55, 56; Col. 4, Lines 32-35).
Regarding Claim 29, Othmer teaches a process of an invention which crystallizes solvent from a solution and separates the crystals where the solvent is normally water and fresh water is removed from saline water (i.e., a water treatment system for removing salt from a feed brine, the water treatment system comprising; Col. 1, Lines 9-30) where the freezer (i.e., a primary freezing chamber) is used to contact seawater (i.e., configured to receive the feed brine) with liquid butane as a refrigerant, at a temperature below 0°C (i.e., and a cooled intermediate-cold-liquid (ICL) connected to the primary freezing chamber, wherein the cooled ICL and the feed brine are combined and mixed within the primary freezing chamber), such that the butane evaporates and ice crystals form in the water phase and then the slurry of ice crystals (i.e., forming a mixture comprising solid ice particles and a liquid component) and brine is passed to an ice separator which may be a continuous centrifuge (i.e., and a rotary separator configured to separate the solid ice particles and the liquid component of the mixture after receiving the mixture from the primary freezing chamber), particularly if the plant capacity is less than about 2,000 gallons per hour (Col. 4, Lines 10-37).
Othmer does not teach wherein the rotary separator comprises an outer housing within which is contained (1) a rotatable outer filter tube having a wall comprising outer filter tube openings, (2) a rotatable intermediate filter tube having a wall comprising intermediate filter tube openings, and (3) a rotatable inner filter tube having a wall comprising inner filter tube openings, wherein the rotatable intermediate filter tube is positioned within the rotatable outer filter tube about a common axis that is inclined at an angle from horizontal, and the rotatable inner filter tube is positioned within the rotatable intermediate filter tube about the common axis, and wherein the inner filter tube openings are larger than the intermediate filter tube openings, and the intermediate filter tube openings are larger than the outer filter tube openings, and wherein the rotatable inner filter tube is longer than the rotatable intermediate filter tube, the rotatable intermediate filter tube is longer than the rotatable outer filter tube, and the rotatable outer filter tube is longer than the outer housing.
However, Dubach teaches the use of several rotary filter drums, arranged concentric around a common axle in which the drums are arranged in such a spaced relation that the liquid flows from the sieving jacket more adjacent to the drum axis and into the inner side of the next following outer drum wherein the drums with increasing distance from the drum axis possess decreasing passage openings (i.e., and wherein the inner filter tube openings are larger than the intermediate filter tube openings, and the intermediate filter tube openings are larger than the outer filter tube openings; Col. 2, Lines 38-51) and the length of the drums decreases from the innermost drum to the housing (i.e., wherein the rotatable inner filter tube is longer than the rotatable intermediate filter tube, the rotatable intermediate filter tube is longer than the rotatable outer filter tube, and the rotatable outer filter tube is longer than the outer housing; Fig. 8) with conical sieving drums (Fig. 8, #46”, 47”, 48”) surrounded by a housing (i.e., wherein the rotary separator comprises an outer housing within which is contained (1) a rotatable outer filter tube having a wall comprising outer filter tube openings, (2) a rotatable intermediate filter tube having a wall comprising intermediate filter tube openings, and (3) a rotatable inner filter tube having a wall comprising inner filter tube openings, wherein the rotatable intermediate filter tube is positioned within the rotatable outer filter tube about a common axis, and the rotatable inner filter tube is positioned within the rotatable intermediate filter tube about the common axis; Fig. 8, #49; Col. 4, Lines 28-43) for the purpose of practically completely preventing the soiling or clogging-up of the sieve and a very high filtering efficiency is assured (Col. 3, Lines 58-61). Dubach further teaches in Fig. 8 that the sieving drums are conically formed or cylindrically formed (Col. 4, Lines 40-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the ice separator as taught by Othmer with the rotary filter drums as taught by Dubach because the rotary filter drums would prevent the sieves from clogging-up and assure a very high filtering efficiency.
Othmer in view of Dubach does not teach wherein the common axis is inclined at an angle from horizontal and the portion of the rotatable inner filter tube that extends beyond the rotatable intermediate filter tube is cylindrical.
However, Sanders teaches a cylindrical drum separator (i.e., the portion of the rotatable inner filter tube that extends beyond the rotatable intermediate filter tube is cylindrical; Fig. 4, #12) can have an axis of rotation (Fig. 4, #14) forming an acute angle with respect to horizontal (i.e., wherein the common axis is inclined at an angle from horizontal) such that gravity can move slurry through the drum and an alternative version wherein the drum (Fig. 5, #80) may be conical with an axis of rotation (Fig. 5, #14) remaining generally horizontal so that the angle of the conical drum can help the slurry move through the drum (Figs. 4-5; Col. 5, Lines 16-26). This shows that conical drums spinning on a horizontal axis are interchangeable with cylindrical drums spinning on an inclined axis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the ice separator made obvious by Othmer in view of Dubach with the inclined cylindrical separator as taught by Sanders because the inclined cylindrical separator is a known alternative for using gravity to aid in progressing slurry down the rotating drum.
Regarding Claim 30, Sanders further teaches the cylindrical drum separator can have an axis of rotation (Fig. 4, #14) forming an acute angle with respect to horizontal (i.e., wherein the angle from horizontal is in a range of 5° to about 75°; Col. 5, Lines 16-26). Othmer in view of Dubach in view of Sanders does not explicitly teach wherein the angle from horizontal is in a range of 5° to about 75°. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for claimed ranges that overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976))(See MPEP 2144.05(I)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to have selected the angle that corresponds with the claimed range when experimenting with the angle made obvious by Othmer in view of Dubach in view of Sanders.
Regarding Claim 31, Sanders further teaches the cylindrical drum separator can have an axis of rotation (Fig. 4, #14) forming an acute angle with respect to horizontal (i.e., wherein the angle from horizontal is in a range of 10° to about 60°; Col. 5, Lines 16-26). Othmer in view of Dubach in view of Sanders does not explicitly teach wherein the angle from horizontal is in a range of 10° to about 60°. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for claimed ranges that overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976))(See MPEP 2144.05(I)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to have selected the angle that corresponds with the claimed range when experimenting with the angle made obvious by Othmer in view of Dubach in view of Sanders.
Regarding Claim 33, Othmer further teaches that tanks are not shown but may be required for the storage of components at either intermediary or terminal points (i.e., further comprising a liquid recovery tank; Col. 8, Lines 54-60).
Dubach further teaches that the sieving drums are surrounded by a housing that is provided with a discharge (i.e., configured to receive the liquid components collected by the outer housing; Fig. 8, #50; Col. 4, Lines 28-31).
Regarding Claim 34, Othmer further teaches that tanks are not shown but may be required for the storage of components at either intermediary or terminal points (i.e., further comprising a first ice recovery tank, a second ice recovery tank, and a third ice recovery tank; Col. 8, Lines 54-60). Dubach further teaches catching funnels (Fig. 8, #51, 52, 53) for the solid particles retained in the respective drums with corresponding discharge taps (i.e., configured to receive solid ice particles discharged from the rotatable inner filter tube, configured to receive solid ice particles discharged from the rotatable intermediate filter tube, configured to receive solid ice particles discharged from the rotatable outer filter tube; Fig. 8, #54, 55, 56; Col. 4, Lines 32-35).
Regarding Claim 36, Othmer teaches a process of an invention which crystallizes solvent from a solution and separates the crystals where the solvent is normally water and fresh water is removed from saline water (i.e., a water treatment system for removing salt from a feed brine, the water treatment system comprising; Col. 1, Lines 9-30) where the freezer (i.e., a primary freezing chamber) is used to contact seawater (i.e., configured to receive the feed brine) with liquid butane as a refrigerant, at a temperature below 0°C (i.e., and a cooled intermediate-cold-liquid (ICL) connected to the primary freezing chamber, wherein the cooled ICL and the feed brine are combined and mixed within the primary freezing chamber), such that the butane evaporates and ice crystals form in the water phase and then the slurry of ice crystals (i.e., forming a mixture comprising solid ice particles and a liquid component) and brine is passed to an ice separator which may be a continuous centrifuge (i.e., and a rotary separator configured to separate the solid ice particles and the liquid component of the mixture after receiving the mixture from the primary freezing chamber), particularly if the plant capacity is less than about 2,000 gallons per hour (Col. 4, Lines 10-37).
Othmer does not teach wherein the rotary separator comprises an outer housing, and a rotatable inner filter tube located partially inside the outer housing that is configured to receive the mixture from the inlet, wherein the inner filter tube comprises inner filter tube openings and an inner filter tube outlet located below the inlet.
However, Dubach teaches the use of several rotary filter drums with a supply pipe (Fig. 3, #24) located at the upper end of the drum (Fig. 3; Col. 3, Lines 21-30) which is located above the discharge taps (i.e., an inner filter tube outlet located below the inlet; Figs. 6-8, #54-56; Col. 4, Lines 32-35), arranged concentric around a common axle in which the drums are arranged in such a spaced relation that the liquid flows from the sieving jacket more adjacent to the drum axis and into the inner side of the next following outer drum wherein the drums with increasing distance from the drum axis possess decreasing passage openings (i.e., a rotatable inner filter tube located partially inside the outer housing that is configured to receive the mixture from the inlet; Col. 2, Lines 38-51) and the length of the drums decreases from the innermost drum to the housing (Fig. 8) with conical sieving drums (Fig. 8, #46”, 47”, 48”) surrounded by a housing (i.e., an outer housing; Fig. 8, #49; Col. 4, Lines 28-43) for the purpose of practically completely preventing the soiling or clogging-up of the sieve and a very high filtering efficiency is assured (Col. 3, Lines 58-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the ice separator as taught by Othmer with the rotary filter drums as taught by Dubach because the rotary filter drums would prevent the sieves from clogging-up and assure a very high filtering efficiency.
Othmer in view of Dubach does not teach an inlet on a first end of the rotary separator.
However, Sanders teaches a cylindrical drum separator (Fig. 4, #12) can have an axis of rotation (Fig. 4, #14) forming an acute angle with respect to horizontal such that gravity can move slurry through the drum (Col. 5, Lines 16-26) with a feed pipe (Fig. 4, #30) that extends into the drum (i.e., an inlet on a first end of the rotary separator; Col. 3, Lines 52-58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the ice separator made obvious by Othmer in view of Dubach with the inclined cylindrical separator as taught by Sanders because the inclined cylindrical separator is a known alternative for using gravity to aid in progressing slurry down the rotating drum.
Regarding Claim 37, Dubach further teaches the use of several rotary filter drums, arranged concentric around a common axle in which the drums are arranged in such a spaced relation that the liquid flows from the sieving jacket more adjacent to the drum axis and into the inner side of the next following outer drum wherein the drums with increasing distance from the drum axis possess decreasing passage openings with the Figs. 6-8 showing that the sieves are partially inside the housing (i.e., where the rotary separator further comprises a rotatable outer filter tube located partially inside the outer housing, wherein the outer filter tube comprises outer filter tube openings, a rotatable intermediate filter tube located between the outer filter tube and the inner filter tube, wherein the intermediate filter tube comprises intermediate filter tube openings, and wherein the inner filter tube openings are larger than the intermediate filter tube openings, and the intermediate filter tube openings are larger than the outer filter tube openings; Col. 2, Lines 38-51).
Regarding Claim 38, Dubach further teaches the length of the drums decreases from the innermost drum to the housing (i.e., wherein the rotatable inner filter tube is longer than the rotatable intermediate filter tube, the rotatable intermediate filter tube is longer than the rotatable outer filter tube; Fig. 8) with conical sieving drums (Fig. 8, #46”, 47”, 48”) surrounded by a housing that is shorter than all the sieving drums (i.e., and the rotatable outer filter tube is longer than the outer housing; Fig. 8, #49; Col. 4, Lines 28-43).
Regarding Claim 39, Dubach further teaches the length of the drums decreases from the innermost drum to the housing (i.e., wherein a distal portion of the rotatable inner filter tube that extends beyond the rotatable intermediate filter tube is cylindrical; Fig. 8)
Sanders further teaches a cylindrical drum separator (i.e., and wherein the distal portion of the rotatable inner filter tube is cylindrical; Fig. 4, #12) can have an axis of rotation (Fig. 4, #14) forming an acute angle with respect to horizontal such that gravity can move slurry through the drum and an alternative version wherein the drum (Fig. 5, #80) may be conical with an axis of rotation (Fig. 5, #14) remaining generally horizontal so that the angle of the conical drum can help the slurry move through the drum (Figs. 4-5; Col. 5, Lines 16-26). This shows that conical drums spinning on a horizontal axis are interchangeable with cylindrical drums spinning on an inclined axis.
Claims 25 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Othmer in view of Dubach in view of Sanders as applied to claims 21 and 29 above, and further in view of Johnson et al US Patent No. US 3813892 A (hereinafter Johnson).
Regarding Claim 25, Othmer in view of Dubach in view of Sanders does not teach wherein the feed brine is introduced into the primary freezing chamber by spraying.
However, Johnson teaches the introduction of liquid refrigerant and saline water by spray nozzles (Col. 4, Line 64 to Col. 5, Line 9) for the purpose of producing smaller crystal sizes that form rapidly to reduce the size of the freezer vessel and allow for the removal of crystals at a faster rate (Col. 3, Lines 26-38).
Johnson is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the desalination of saline water through the crystallization of water with an appropriate refrigerant (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the process of crystallization made obvious by Othmer in view of Dubach in view of Sanders to use the spraying in the freezing chamber as taught by Johnson because the spraying would produce smaller crystals at a faster rate and would reduce the size of the freezer vessel.
Regarding Claim 32, Othmer in view of Dubach in view of Sanders does not teach wherein the feed brine is introduced into the primary freezing chamber by spraying.
However, Johnson teaches the introduction of liquid refrigerant and saline water by spray nozzles (Col. 4, Line 64 to Col. 5, Line 9) for the purpose of producing smaller crystal sizes that form rapidly to reduce the size of the freezer vessel and allow for the removal of crystals at a faster rate (Col. 3, Lines 26-38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the process of crystallization made obvious by Othmer in view of Dubach in view of Sanders to use the spraying in the freezing chamber as taught by Johnson because the spraying would produce smaller crystals at a faster rate and would reduce the size of the freezer vessel.
Claims 28 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Othmer in view of Dubach in view of Sanders as applied to claims 21 and 29 above, and further in view of Shima et al US Patent Application No. US 20060175269 A1 (hereinafter Shima).
Regarding Claim 28, Dubach further teaches an electromotor (i.e., wherein the rotary separator further comprises a motor; Fig. 3, #2).
Othmer in view of Dubach in view of Sanders does not teach a motor configured to rotate the rotatable inner filter tube, the rotatable intermediate filter tube, and the rotatable outer filter tube at different rotational speeds.
However, Shima teaches the use of multiple motors (Fig. 7, #M1, M2) to rotate the internal basket (Fig. 7, #92) and the external basket (Fig. 7, #93) at different controlled rates of 300 RPM and 290 RPM, respectively for the purpose of discharging ice from the centrifuge (Paragraph 0157).
Shima is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to freezing a liquid and separating the ice from the concentrated liquor with a centrifugal separator (Abstract, Paragraph 0001). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the ice separator made obvious by Othmer in view of Dubach in view of Sanders with the multiple motors taught by Shima because the multiple motors would control the sieves at different rates and discharge ice from the ice separator.
Regarding Claim 35, Dubach further teaches an electromotor (i.e., wherein the rotary separator further comprises a motor; Fig. 3, #2).
Othmer in view of Dubach in view of Sanders does not teach a motor configured to rotate the rotatable inner filter tube, the rotatable intermediate filter tube, and the rotatable outer filter tube at different rotational speeds.
However, Shima teaches the use of multiple motors (Fig. 7, #M1, M2) to rotate the internal basket (Fig. 7, #92) and the external basket (Fig. 7, #93) at different controlled rates of 300 RPM and 290 RPM, respectively for the purpose of discharging ice from the centrifuge (Paragraph 0157).
Shima is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to freezing a liquid and separating the ice from the concentrated liquor with a centrifugal separator (Abstract, Paragraph 0001). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the ice separator made obvious by Othmer in view of Dubach in view of Sanders with the multiple motors taught by Shima because the multiple motors would control the sieves at different rates and discharge ice from the ice separator.
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 ADAM ADRIEN GERMAIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30-4:30.
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.
/A.A.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/Ryan B Huang/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights