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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/16/2025 has been entered.
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 21-24, 26-27, 29-31, and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Othmer (US Patent No. 3250081 A) hereinafter Othmer in view of Dubach (US Patent No. 2748951 A) hereinafter Dubach.
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, and the rotatable inner filter tube is positioned within the rotatable intermediate filter tube, 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, and the rotatable inner filter tube is positioned within the rotatable intermediate filter tube; 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 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 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.
Regarding Claim 22, Othmer in view of Dubach makes obvious the water treatment system of claim 21. Dubach further teaches in Fig. 8 that the sieving drums are conically formed (i.e., wherein the rotary separator is inclined at an angle from horizontal; Col. 4, Lines 40-44).
PNG
media_image1.png
262
243
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 23, Othmer in view of Dubach makes obvious the water treatment system of claim 22. Dubach further teaches in Fig. 8 that the sieving drums are conically formed (Col. 4, Lines 40-44). Dubach 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 to have selected the angle that corresponds with the claimed range when experimenting with the angle made obvious by Othmer in view of Dubach.
Regarding Claim 24, Othmer in view of Dubach makes obvious the water treatment system of claim 22. Dubach further teaches in Fig. 8 that the sieving drums are conically formed (Col. 4, Lines 40-44). Dubach 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 to have selected the angle that corresponds with the claimed range when experimenting with the angle made obvious by Othmer in view of Dubach.
Regarding Claim 26, Othmer in view of Dubach makes obvious the water treatment system of claim 21. 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 in view of Dubach makes obvious the water treatment system of claim 21. 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, and the rotatable inner filter tube is positioned within the rotatable intermediate filter tube, 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, and the rotatable inner filter tube is positioned within the rotatable intermediate filter tube; 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 (i.e., wherein the rotary separator is inclined at an angle from horizontal; Col. 4, Lines 40-44).
PNG
media_image1.png
262
243
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 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.
Regarding Claim 30, Othmer in view of Dubach makes obvious the water treatment system of claim 29. Dubach further teaches in Fig. 8 that the sieving drums are conically formed (Col. 4, Lines 40-44). Dubach 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 to have selected the angle that corresponds with the claimed range when experimenting with the angle made obvious by Othmer in view of Dubach.
Regarding Claim 31, Othmer in view of Dubach makes obvious the water treatment system of claim 29. Dubach further teaches in Fig. 8 that the sieving drums are conically formed (Col. 4, Lines 40-44). Dubach 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 to have selected the angle that corresponds with the claimed range when experimenting with the angle made obvious by Othmer in view of Dubach.
Regarding Claim 33, Othmer in view of Dubach makes obvious the water treatment system of claim 29. 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 in view of Dubach makes obvious the water treatment system of claim 29. 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).
Claims 25 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Othmer in view of Dubach as applied to claims 21 and 29 above, and further in view of Johnson et al (US Patent No. 3813892 A) hereinafter Johnson.
Regarding Claim 25, Othmer in view of Dubach makes obvious the water treatment system of claim 21. Othmer in view of Dubach 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 to modify the process of crystallization made obvious by Othmer in view of Dubach 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 makes obvious the water treatment system of claim 29. Othmer in view of Dubach 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 to modify the process of crystallization made obvious by Othmer in view of Dubach 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 as applied to claims 21 and 29 above, and further in view of Shima et al (US Patent Application No. 20060175269 A1) hereinafter Shima.
Regarding Claim 28, Othmer in view of Dubach makes obvious the water treatment system of claim 21. Dubach further teaches an electromotor (i.e., wherein the rotary separator further comprises a motor; Fig. 3, #2).
Othmer in view of Dubach 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 to modify the ice separator made obvious by Othmer in view of Dubach 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, Othmer in view of Dubach makes obvious the water treatment system of claim 29. Dubach further teaches an electromotor (i.e., wherein the rotary separator further comprises a motor; Fig. 3, #2).
Othmer in view of Dubach 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 to modify the ice separator made obvious by Othmer in view of Dubach 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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 06/16/2025 has been entered.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the cancellation of claims 1-20 and the addition of new claims 21-35 have been acknowledged.
In view of the cancellation of claim 7, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 06/16/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that claims 21 and 29 contain limitations towards the length of the filter tubes of the rotary separator and the angle of the rotary separator which are not taught in the previously cited prior art (Arguments filed 06/16/2025, Pages 9-11).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 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’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. All other arguments have been indirectly addressed.
Conclusion
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, Vickie Kim can be reached at (571)272-0579. 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