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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 29, 30, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cummins et al (International Patent No. WO 2011000052 A1) hereinafter Cummins, in view of Allen (US Patent No. 20040164005 A1) hereinafter Allen, in view of Gorrell et al (US Patent No. 20170166468 A1) hereinafter Gorrell.
Regarding Claim 29, Cummins teaches a process for treating an aqueous stream from a polymerization process (i.e., a method of removing contaminants from an aqueous material feed stream derived from a polymerization process) with the treated aqueous stream being recycled to the polymerization process (i.e., to form a recovered aqueous stream having a reduced contaminant concentration for re-use in another polymerization process; Abstract) where a centrate stream from a PVC production plant (i.e., providing an aqueous material feed stream) is fed to a water treatment plant (Fig. 2, #40) to reduce suspended solids and dissolved solids content (i.e., comprising one or more contaminants including particulate and non-particulate contaminants; Page 9, Lines 28-31 to Page 10, Lines 1-10) with the water treatment set up as a three stage process with step one using hydrocyclones to initially remove solids (i.e., centrifuging the aqueous material feed stream in a first hydrocyclone to form a first overflow stream and a first underflow stream wherein the first overflow stream comprises a reduced concentration of particulate contaminants compared to the first underflow stream), step two using microfiltration to remove suspended solids (i.e., subjecting at least the first overflow stream to a microfiltration step thereby forming a partially filtered aqueous material stream), and step three using reverse osmosis to removed dissolved solids (i.e., subjecting the partially filtered aqueous material stream to reverse osmosis to remove at least part of the non-particulate contaminants; Page 10, Lines 18-22). Cummins further teaches that permeate leaving the microfiltration stage is essentially free of suspended solids of size greater than 0.2 µm (i.e., to substantially remove particulate contaminants having a particle size larger than 0.5 µm; Page 11, Lines 32-33 to Page 12, Lines 1-3), that the water fed to the reverse osmosis membrane should be cooled to be below the maximum recommended membrane operating temperature (Page 12, Lines 22-27), and that the hydrocyclone assembly (Fig. 2, #44) has hydrocyclones (Fig. 2, #45) in two stages (Page 10, Lines 23-30).
Cummins does not explicitly teach the step of directing the first underflow stream to a second hydrocyclone to form a second overflow stream that is combinable with the aqueous material feed stream.
However, Allen teaches two hydrocyclones in sequence (Fig. 5, #505, 535) in which the underflow of the first stage separator (Fig. 5, #515) is fed to the underflow-fed separator (Fig. 5, #535) where the overflow of the underflow-fed separator is fed back into the feed stream (Fig. 5, #520) of the first stage separator (Paragraphs 0062-0064) for the purpose of improving density separation performance and controlling the particle size distribution of slurried media (Paragraph 0007).
Allen is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to material separations and recycling plastics (Paragraph 0002) utilizing hydrocyclones (Paragraph 0009). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the two stage hydrocyclone system as taught by Cummins to feed the underflow of the first stage hydrocyclone to the second stage hydrocyclone and then recycle the overflow of the second hydrocyclone back to the feed as taught by Allen because the method taught by Allen would improve the density separation and control the particle size distribution.
Cummins in view of Allen does not teach performing reverse osmosis at a temperature higher than 50°C.
However, Gorrell teaches a high temperature membrane that can tolerate 170°F or 76.6 °C (i.e., performing reverse osmosis at a temperature higher than 50°C) with the benefit of allowing hot water reuse which results in significant savings of heat energy and natural gas energy (Paragraphs 0041-0042).
Gorrell is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a high temperature reverse osmosis membrane (Abstract) in the field of industrial and commercial wastewater filtration (Paragraph 0002). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process for treating an aqueous stream from a polymerization process as taught by Cummins in view of Allen with the high temperature reverse osmosis membrane as taught by Gorrell because the high temperature membrane would result in significant energy savings.
Regarding Claim 30, Cummins in view of Allen in view of Gorrell makes obvious the method of claim 29. Allen further teaches an example operation of a hydrocyclone in which the hydrocyclone concentrates particles coarser than 10 microns substantially (Paragraph 0077) and that the particle size distribution of a classified slurry can be from about 5 to 25 microns (i.e., wherein centrifuging the aqueous material feed stream includes removing particulate contaminants having a diameter of at least 10 µm; Paragraph 0013).
Regarding Claim 35, Cummins in view of Allen in view of Gorrell makes obvious the method of claim 29. Cummins further teaches that the temperature of the centrate entering the solid/liquid separation step is at 50-80 °C (i.e., wherein subjecting the overflow stream to microfiltration is conducted at temperatures in the range from about 70°C to about 90°C; Page 6, Lines 16-26) and that the aqueous stream is advantageously cooled prior to the reverse osmosis step such that the water is not above the maximum operating temperature of the membrane (Page 7, Lines 19-24) and that it is desirable to keep the water temperatures in the hydrocyclone assembly and microfiltration steps as high as possible to prevent the polyvinyl alcohol in solution to the greatest extent possible (Page 12, Lines 4-21). Cummins in view of Allen in view of Gorrell does not explicitly teach the microfiltration temperature range of about 70°C to about 90°C in the instant claim. 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 having ordinary skill in the art to have selected temperatures that correspond to the claimed range while experimenting with the range taught by Cummins in view of Allen in view of Gorrell.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 04/09/2025 has been entered.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the amendment of claims 29 and 35 has been acknowledged.
In view of the additional IDS documentation, the IDS issues have been resolved.
In view of the amendment to the drawings, the objection to the drawings has been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to the specification, the objections to the specification have been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claim 29, the objections to the claims have been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claim 35, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 04/09/2025 have been fully considered.
The prior art above is listed again as follows for convenience: Cummins et al (International Patent No. WO 2011000052 A1) hereinafter Cummins, in view of Allen (US Patent No. 20040164005 A1) hereinafter Allen, in view of Gorrell et al (US Patent No. 20170166468 A1) hereinafter Gorrell.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach subjecting the partially filtered aqueous material stream from a polymerization process to a reverse osmosis process at a temperature higher than 50 °C because Cummins does not directly teach the high temperature reverse osmosis and Gorrell, which teaches the high temperature reverse osmosis, is not analogous art because Gorrell pertains to an aqueous stream from a polymerization process, does not address the same technical problem as described in the instant application, and there is no link between Gorrell and the other cited prior art documents (Arguments filed 04/09/2025, Page 9, Paragraph 4 and Page 10, Paragraph 2 to Page 12).
Applicant argues that the hydrocyclones of the instant application are operated in parallel and thus the method taught by Allen, which utilizes a series of hydrocyclones, is not proper to combine with Cummins (Arguments filed 04/09/2025, Page 9, Paragraph 5 to Page 10, Paragraph 1).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that Gorrell is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Gorrell teaches a membrane filtration process particularly for the removal of oils, greases, and suspended solids from wastewater from industrial processes (Paragraph 0039) employing a high temperature reverse osmosis membrane (Abstract), where oils and greases are simply natural polymers. There is no requirement for prior art to be linked to each other, as long as the prior art is linked to the claimed invention as previously described.
Additionally, Cummins teaches that the temperature of the process is still elevated after the hydrocyclone separation at 50 - 80 °C Page 6, Lines 16-26) and that the aqueous stream is cooled only to protect the reverse osmosis membrane from damage by operating above the maximum recommended operating temperature (Page 7, Lines 19-24). Given the high temperature reverse osmosis membrane taught to reduce costs by Gorrell, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the high temperature reverse osmosis membrane instead of a lower temperature reverse osmosis membrane.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments against Allen, the instant claims explicitly describe a series of hydrocyclones “centrifuging the aqueous material feed stream in a first hydrocyclone to form a first overflow stream and a first underflow stream wherein the first overflow stream comprises a reduced concentration of the particulate contaminants compared to the first underflow stream;
directing the first underflow stream to a second hydrocyclone to form a second overflow stream that is combinable with the aqueous material feed stream”. The first hydrocyclone feeds the second hydrocyclone, the definition of a series operation. There is no mention of multiple first hydrocyclones or second hydrocyclones, which are explicitly stated as “a first hydrocyclone” and “a second hydrocyclone” which negates the premise that parallel operation is occurring. As seen in Fig. 9 below of the instant application, Stage 1 depicts up to four hydrocyclones operating in series, continually feeding the overs portion of the flow of one hydrocyclone to the next, with the unders portion of the flow of all of the Stage 1 hydrocyclones being fed to the Stage 2 hydrocyclones, which is a series operation. There is also no mention of the word “parallel” in the instant specification or in the instant claims.
PNG
media_image1.png
294
568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Allen teaches the same configuration in Fig. 5 below with two “Stage 1” hydrocyclones and one “Stage 2” hydrocyclone and the hydrocyclone labeled 525 can be disregarded for the instant claims as only a single Stage 1 and a single Stage 2 hydrocyclone are present in the instant claim. See the motivation to combine Allen with Cummins in the rejection of claim 29 above.
PNG
media_image2.png
456
510
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. All other arguments have been indirectly addressed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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, Vickie Kim can be reached on (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
/Ryan B Huang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777