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
The amendment filed on 04/15/2025 introduces new matter to the specification and claims. The independent claim 1 now contains new matter introduced to the specification and claims 2-20 depend upon claim 1. Therefore, claims 1-20 are considered to have a priority date of 04/15/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the figures on pages 12 and 13 do not have labels and should be corrected to have the labels 9c and 9d, respectively. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The amendment filed 04/15/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Page 2, lines 12-18 “The quiescent vertical column receives the flow that is substantially liquid exiting the bottom of the hydrocyclone and yields at least two outputs. The first output provides a first portion of the flow that recirculates to the latent heat exchanger to maintain supersaturated brine circulation. The second output provides a second portion of the flow with salt that settles and accumulates at the bottom of the quiescent vertical column for removal. The quiescent vertical column is configured to minimize turbulence to enhance salt settling while maintaining continuous liquid flow to the latent heat exchanger”.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 9 contains the limitation “an internal coating” which is applied to the internal side of “a plurality of titanium tubes”. The instant specification does not describe a particular additive coating, simply that “Titanium has a very strong oxide coating that is naturally hydrophobic and promotes dropwise condensation” (Page 6, Lines 1-2). As such, the internal coating will be interpreted to be an inherent feature of titanium tubes. Additionally, page 5 of the instant specification describes scouring and electropolishing the internal side of the titanium tubes, implying that the coating must be natural within the titanium as there is never described a coating step and any scouring or electropolishing would remove such a coating unless the titanium always contained the appropriate surface or “coating”.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 5, 10, 13, 16, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, “the bottom of the quiescent vertical column” in line 14 of the claim should read “a bottom of the quiescent vertical column”.
In Claim 2, “to saltwater” in line 2 of the claim should read “to the saltwater”.
In Claim 5, “exchange” in line 3 of the claim should read “exchanger”.
In Claim 10, “the bottom outlet” in line 2 of the claim should read “a bottom outlet”.
In Claim 13, “the bottom outlet” in line 2 of the claim should read “a bottom outlet”.
In Claim 13, “the sensor” in line 2 of the claim should read “the brine concentration sensor”.
In Claim 16, “the compressor output” in line 2 of the claim should read “the output of the compressor”.
In Claim 16, “the condensate” in lines 2-3 of the claim should read “the cooled condensate”.
In Claim 19, “preheat saltwater” in line 3 of the claim should read “preheat the saltwater”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 was amended to contain the same verbiage as the amended specification which was amended on Page 2, lines 12-18 of the instant specification to recite the following “The quiescent vertical column receives the flow that is substantially liquid exiting the bottom of the hydrocyclone and yields at least two outputs. The first output provides a first portion of the flow that recirculates to the latent heat exchanger to maintain supersaturated brine circulation. The second output provides a second portion of the flow with salt that settles and accumulates at the bottom of the quiescent vertical column for removal. The quiescent vertical column is configured to minimize turbulence to enhance salt settling while maintaining continuous liquid flow to the latent heat exchanger”. The previous version of the paragraph recited “a quiescent vertical column, wherein the flow that is substantially liquid exiting the bottom of the hydroclone has a portion of the flow that recirculates to the latent heat exchanger and another portion with salt that settle and accumulate at the bottom of the vertical column”. The new paragraph is not supported by any other part of the disclosure, where the original description is depicted in Figs. 1, 8a, 8b, and 11. There is no instance, besides in the amended paragraph, of a quiescent vertical column receiving all of the output of the bottom of the hydroclone and outputting a liquid flow and a solid crystal flow. The description and figures appear to describe and depict a flow pipe that passes over a quiescent vertical column, into which some liquid flows and a majority of solids settle. Solids are then removed via a lock hopper. As such, the relationship of the column to the process and the structural nature of the column have been changed in the amended paragraph.
Claims 2-20 are rejected because of their dependence upon claim 1.
Claim 10 was newly added in amendment filed on 04/15/2025 and contains the limitation “wherein the hydroclone includes an adjustable flow regulator at the bottom outlet to control a ratio of the first portion of the flow recirculating to the latent heat exchanger and the second portion directed to the quiescent vertical column”. There is no mention of an adjustable flow regulator on the bottom outlet of the hydroclone in the instant specification nor the figures.
Claim 11 was newly added in amendment filed on 04/15/2025 and contains the limitation “wherein the quiescent vertical column includes a conical bottom section configured to funnel settled salt toward a removal port, the conical bottom section having a polished inner surface to minimize salt adhesion”. There is no mention of the shape of the quiescent vertical column and none of the figures depict a vertical column with a conical bottom. Additionally, polishing is only mentioned on page 5 of the instant specification in reference to electropolishing the internal surface of the titanium tubes of the heat exchanger. There is no reference to a polished surface in the quiescent vertical column in either the instance specification or the figures.
Claim 12 was newly added in amendment filed on 04/15/2025 and contains the limitation “wherein the lock hopper is operatively coupled to a pressure-equalizing valve configured to maintain a pressure differential between the quiescent vertical column and an external salt collection system during salt slurry removal”. There is no mention of a pressure-equalizing valve in the instant specification nor the figures.
Claim 13 was newly added in amendment filed on 04/15/2025 and contains the limitation “further comprising a brine concentration sensor positioned at the bottom outlet of the hydroclone, the sensor configured to monitor salt concentration in the substantially liquid flow and adjust recirculation to the latent heat exchanger based on a predetermined concentration threshold”. There is no mention of measuring brine concentration in the instant specification or the figures, and thus no mention of a sensor associated with measuring brine concentration as well.
Claim 14 was newly added in amendment filed on 04/15/2025 and contains the limitation “wherein the latent heat exchanger operates at a steam shell-side temperature of at least 160°C and a brine circulation temperature of 153-163°C”. A temperature difference of about 7°C is mentioned in Page 5, Paragraph 5 and Page 6, Paragraph 1 of the instant specification, and saturated steam temperatures of 168°C, 172°C, and 190°C are shown in a table at the top of Page 8. As such, there is no support for a specific temperature range of at least 160°C nor for a brine circulation temperature of the specific range of 153-163°C.
Claim 15 was newly added in amendment filed on 04/15/2025 and contains the limitation “wherein the compressor includes a variable-speed motor configured to adjust compression based on a detected steam flow rate from the hydroclone, optimizing energy efficiency of the desalination system”. The table on the top of Page 8 of the instant specification shows different shaft speeds for a compressor, but the specification and figures are lacking any reference to a variable-speed motor for adjusting the compression based upon detected steam flow rates.
Claim 17 was newly added in amendment filed on 04/15/2025 and contains the limitation “wherein the compressor outputs superheated steam at a temperature greater than 200°C and a pressure of greater than 9 bar”. The instant specification does not describe the output conditions of the compressor, except that steam exiting the compressor is superheated (Page 7, Paragraph 2). There is no support for specific temperatures or pressures of the output steam of the compressor.
Claim 18 was newly added in amendment filed on 04/15/2025 and contains the limitation “wherein the steam injector is configured to introduce steam at a temperature at least 7°C higher than the saltwater entering the latent heat exchanger, enhancing thermal efficiency of brine evaporation”. There is only a reference to live steam injection to heat the feed water to the final temperature (Page 4, Paragraph 6) and no mention of a specific temperature difference in the specification or figures.
Claim 19 was newly added in amendment filed on 04/15/2025 and contains the limitation “wherein the steam injector introduces live steam at a pressure of at least 10 bar and a temperature of greater than or equal to 170°C to preheat saltwater prior to entry into the latent heat exchanger”. There is only a reference to live steam injection to heat the feed water to the final temperature (Page 4, Paragraph 6) and no mention of a specific pressure or temperature in the specification or figures.
Claim 20 was newly added in amendment filed on 04/15/2025 and contains the limitation “wherein the desuperheater reduces the temperature of the superheated steam from greater than 200°C to less than or equal to 170°C by injecting cooled condensate, ensuring saturated steam enters the latent heat exchanger”. The instant specification simply describes removing the superheat from the superheated steam exiting the compressor (Page 7, Paragraph 2) and does not mention specific temperatures of either the output of the compressor or the output of the desuperheater.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the flow" three times in lines 8, 12, and 13-14 of the claim. There are several instances of “a flow” referenced before “the flow” is used and it is unclear which flow is being referenced in each instance.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first output" in line 11 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-20 are rejected because of their dependence upon claim 1.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "each tube" in line 2 of the claim. There are references of “tubes” in claim 1 and “a plurality of parallel titanium tubes” in claim 9 and it is unclear to which of these “each tube” is referencing.
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 1-3, 7, 9-11, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holtzapple (US Patent No. 20190301808 A1) hereinafter Holtzapple, in view of Kresnyak et al (US Patent No. 6355145 B1) hereinafter Kresnyak, in view of Witte (US Patent No. 3211533 A) hereinafter Witte.
Regarding Claim 1, Holtzapple teaches heat exchanger technology applicable in vapor-compression desalination of seawater and brackish water (i.e., a desalination system; Fig. 1, #10; Paragraph 0003) that comprises raw seawater (Fig. 1, #21) that enters a plurality of latent heat exchangers (i.e., a latent heat exchanger configured to receive saltwater; Fig. 1, #200A-E) that are shell and tube heat exchangers with an evaporator side inlet (i.e., the latent heat exchanger including tubes with an interior that is configured to circulate supersaturated brine with suspended salts; Fig. 1, #202; Paragraph 0048) with a vapor evaporator outlet (Fig. 1, #204) that flows through a compressor (i.e., a compressor that receives at least a portion of the flow that is substantially steam; Fig. 1, #50) before flowing into the condenser side of the latent heat exchanger via a condenser inlet (i.e., an output of the compressor recirculating at least a portion of the flow back to the latent heat exchanger; Fig. 1, #208; Paragraph 50). Holtzapple further teaches that a synergistic benefit can occur with the recovery of salts from the concentrated brine stream through a crystallizer, specifically listing sodium chloride, for the purpose of making the process achieve zero liquid discharge to eliminate the need for brine disposal to both minimize environmental damage and reduce costs associated with discharging brine back into the ocean (Paragraph 0069).
Holtzapple does not teach a hydroclone configured to receive a flow from the latent heat exchanger, the hydroclone having a flow that is substantially steam exiting a top and a flow that is substantially liquid exiting a bottom, a compressor that receives at least a portion of the flow that is substantially steam exiting the top of the hydroclone.
However, Kresnyak teaches passing a contaminated water stream (Fig. 1, #10) through a preheater (Fig. 1, #18) and then into a heated separator (Fig. 1, #20) which can include a cyclonic separator (i.e., hydroclone) where the vapor is fed into a compressor (Fig. 1, #32) and the blowdown or concentrate (Fig. 1, #24) is discharged from the bottom of the heated separator (i.e. a hydroclone configured to receive a flow from the latent heat exchanger, the hydroclone having a flow that is substantially steam exiting a top and a flow that is substantially liquid exiting a bottom, a compressor that receives at least a portion of the flow that is substantially steam exiting the top of the hydroclone; Col. 5, Lines 59-67 to Col. 6, Lines 1-62). Kresnyak teaches that the heated separator and heat exchanger provides a method for removing contaminants from a feed stream while preventing the fouling of and formation of scale on both the heated separator and the heat exchanger (Col. 3, Lines 40-59).
Kresnyak is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a highly efficient water distillation process (Col. 1, Lines 8-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the desalination apparatus taught by Holtzapple with the heated separator taught by Kresnyak because the heated separator would prevent both fouling and scale formation on the heated separator and the heat exchanger.
Holtzapple in view of Kresnyak does not teach a quiescent vertical column that receives the flow that is substantially liquid exiting the bottom of the hydroclone and yields at least two outputs, the first output providing a first portion of the flow that recirculates to the latent heat exchanger to maintain supersaturated brine circulation and a second output providing a second portion of the flow with salt that settles and accumulates at the bottom of the quiescent vertical column, for removal, wherein the quiescent vertical column is configured to minimize turbulence to enhance salt settling while maintaining continuous liquid flow to the latent heat exchanger.
However, Witte teaches a crystallizer vessel (i.e., a quiescent vertical column) in which a supersaturated solution is introduced into the vessel through a supply tube (i.e., that receives the flow that is substantially liquid exiting the bottom of the hydroclone; Fig. 1, #3), saturated liquid is withdrawn at the upper end of the vessel through an outlet (i.e., the first output providing a first portion of the flow that recirculates to the latent heat exchanger to maintain supersaturated brine circulation; Fig. 1, #13) and coarse salt particles are settle to the bottom and pass through a sluice (Fig. 1, #9) into a settling tank (Fig. 1, #8) and precipitating coarse particles leave the vessel through another outlet (i.e., and yields at least two outputs; a second output providing a second portion of the flow with salt that settles and accumulates at the bottom of the quiescent vertical column, for removal; Fig. 1, #12; Col. 1-3) and the flow is directed obliquely upwards with a gradually decreasing velocity such that precipitating coarser particles leave through an outlet and large solid pieces settle into the settling tank (i.e., wherein the quiescent vertical column is configured to minimize turbulence to enhance salt settling while maintaining continuous liquid flow to the latent heat exchanger; Col. 2, Lines 27-65). Witte teaches that the crystallizer vessel prevents the clogging of the inlet and outlet of the vessel by preventing the formation of crusts in the supply tube, the bottom of the vessel and walls of the vessel (Col. 1, Lines 20-29).
Witte is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a crystallizer that separates solid particles from a liquid suspension (Col. 1, Lines 10-19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process made obvious by Holtzapple in view of Kresnyak with the crystallizer as taught by Witte because the crystallizer would enable zero liquid discharge for the process and would prevent the clogging of the inlet and outlet by preventing the formation of crusts.
Regarding Claim 2, Holtzapple in view of Kresnyak in view of Witte makes obvious the desalination system of claim 1. Holtzapple further teaches a steam injection line (i.e., steam injector; Fig. 1, #29) to allow a portion of the expanded steam (Fig. 1, #15) to be injected into the stream of pretreated seawater (i.e., further comprising a steam injector that applies steam to saltwater prior to entry into the latent heat exchanger; Fig. 1, #21; Paragraph 0048).
Regarding Claim 3, Holtzapple in view of Kresnyak in view of Witte makes obvious the desalination system of claim 1. Holtzapple further teaches a vertical mounting of the heat exchanger to prevent the sagging of tubes (Fig. 7; Paragraph 0064) and that the latent heat exchanger can be constructed from titanium for the purpose of resisting corrosion from high temperature seawater (i.e., wherein the tubes are vertical titanium tubes; Paragraph 0073).
Regarding Claim 7, Holtzapple in view of Kresnyak in view of Witte makes obvious the desalination system of claim 1. Holtzapple further teaches an overhead vapor stream flowing from evaporator vapor outlet (Fig. 1, #204) to compressors (Fig. 1, #50) and then desuperheaters (Fig. 1, #30) and then into the condenser side (Fig. 1, #208) of the same latent heat exchanger (Fig. 1, #200A-E) as the evaporator vapor outlet came from (i.e., a desuperheater that receives superheated steam from the compressor and removes the superheat prior to recirculating stream to the latent heat exchanger; Paragraph 0050).
Regarding Claim 9, Holtzapple in view of Kresnyak in view of Witte makes obvious the desalination system of claim 1. Holtzapple further teaches a vertical mounting of the heat exchanger to prevent the sagging of tubes (Fig. 7; Paragraph 0064) and that the latent heat exchanger can be constructed from titanium for the purpose of resisting corrosion from high temperature seawater (i.e., wherein the latent heat exchanger includes a plurality of parallel titanium tubes arranged in a vertical orientation, each tube having an internal coating configured to reduce adhesion of precipitated salts during circulation of the supersaturated brine; Paragraph 0073).
Regarding Claim 10, Holtzapple in view of Kresnyak in view of Witte makes obvious the desalination system of claim 1. Kresnyak further teaches a solid/liquid separation device (Fig. 2, #50) that can be located between the recycle pump (Fig. 2, #42) and the exchanger (Fig. 2, #34) in a slipstream or total flow arrangement to recover solids when the solids are of significant commercial value which contains a control device (i.e., wherein the hydroclone includes an adjustable flow regulator at the bottom outlet to control a ratio of the first portion of the flow recirculating to the latent heat exchanger and the second portion directed to the quiescent vertical column; Fig 2, #44; Col. 5, Line 59 to Col. 7, Line 48).
Regarding Claim 11, Holtzapple in view of Kresnyak in view of Witte makes obvious the desalination system of claim 1. Witte further teaches that the vessel has a conical bottom with an outlet for solid particles near its bottom (i.e., wherein the quiescent vertical column includes a conical bottom section configured to funnel settled salt toward a removal port; Col. 1, Lines 10-19) and that vessel was created with a polished surface made of Monel-metal (i.e., the conical bottom section having a polished inner surface to minimize salt adhesion; Col. 2, Lines 67-72).
Regarding Claim 14, Holtzapple in view of Kresnyak in view of Witte makes obvious the desalination system of claim 1. Furthermore, the limitation “wherein the latent heat exchanger operates at a steam shell-side temperature of at least 160°C and a brine circulation temperature of 153-163°C, maintaining a temperature differential of 7°C between the steam and brine to promote robust heat transfer” is directed toward a manner or method by which the invention is used and is not subject to patentability. The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Regarding Claim 16, Holtzapple in view of Kresnyak in view of Witte makes obvious the desalination system of claim 7. Holtzapple further teaches that superheated steam may be removed by spraying atomized saturated liquid water into a desuperheater (i.e., wherein the desuperheater includes a spray nozzle; Fig. 1, #30; Paragraph 0050) with the water coming from the distilled water line (i.e., injecting cooled condensate into the compressor output to remove superheat; Fig. 1, #32) from the latent heat exchangers (i.e., the condensate sourced from a distillate output of the latent heat exchanger; Paragraph 0052).
Regarding Claim 17, Holtzapple in view of Kresnyak in view of Witte makes obvious the desalination system of claim 1. Holtzapple further teaches an overhead vapor stream flowing from evaporator vapor outlet (Fig. 1, #204) to compressors (Fig. 1, #50) and then desuperheaters (Fig. 1, #30) and then into the condenser side (Fig. 1, #208) of the same latent heat exchanger (Fig. 1, #200A-E) as the evaporator vapor outlet came from (i.e., wherein the compressor outputs superheated steam which is subsequently desuperheated to saturated conditions before recirculation; Paragraph 0050).
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein the compressor outputs superheated steam at a temperature greater than 200°C and a pressure of greater than 9 bar” is directed toward a manner or method by which the invention is used and is not subject to patentability. The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Regarding Claim 18, Holtzapple in view of Kresnyak in view of Witte makes obvious the desalination system of claim 2. Holtzapple further teaches a team injection line (Fig. 1, #29) which is intended to heat the incoming seawater prior to its entry into the latent heat exchangers (Paragraph 0048). The steam injection line is capable of injecting steam at a temperature of at least 7°C higher than the seawater, as the incoming seawater is first heated by a sensible heat exchanger (Fig. 1, #100) prior to steam injection and the output temperature of the sensible heat exchanger can easily be changed to achieve the desired temperature difference between the seawater and the steam being injected.
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein the steam injector is configured to introduce steam at a temperature at least 7°C higher than the saltwater entering the latent heat exchanger” is directed toward a manner or method by which the invention is used and is not subject to patentability. The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Furthermore, the limitation “enhancing thermal efficiency of brine evaporation” is directed toward an expected result from the practice or use of the claimed invention and is therefore not subject to patentability. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)). See MPEP §2112.01(I).
Regarding Claim 19, Holtzapple in view of Kresnyak in view of Witte makes obvious the desalination system of claim 2. Furthermore, the limitation “wherein the steam injector introduces live steam at a pressure of at least 10 bar and a temperature of greater than or equal to 170°C to preheat saltwater prior to entry into the latent heat exchanger” is directed toward a manner or method by which the invention is used and is not subject to patentability. The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Regarding Claim 20, Holtzapple in view of Kresnyak in view of Witte makes obvious the desalination system of claim 7. Furthermore, the limitation “wherein the desuperheater reduces the temperature of the superheated steam from greater than 200°C to less than or equal to 170°C by injecting cooled condensate” is directed toward a manner or method by which the invention is used and is not subject to patentability. The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Furthermore, the limitation “ensuring saturated steam enters the latent heat exchanger” is directed toward an expected result from the practice or use of the claimed invention and is therefore not subject to patentability. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)). See MPEP §2112.01(I).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holtzapple in view of Kresnyak in view of Witte as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sun et al (Chinese Patent No. CN 207187964 U) hereinafter Sun.
Regarding Claim 4, Holtzapple in view of Kresnyak in view of Witte makes obvious the desalination system of claim 1. Holtzapple in view of Kresnyak in view of Witte does not teach the hydroclone further comprising a rotating impellor.
However, Sun teaches providing a hydrocyclone (Fig. 1, #6) with a rotating impellor (Fig. 1, #4) for the purpose of eliminating the air column that forms inside the hydrocyclone so that the air column will not cause poor classification results (Paragraph 0007, Machine Translation).
Sun is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a hydrocyclone that can be used for slurry concentration and liquid degassing (Paragraph 0004, Machine Translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the rotating impellor taught by Sun to the hydroclone made obvious by Holtzapple in view of Kresnyak in view of Witte because it would eliminate the formation of an air column in the hydroclone which would prevent the air column from producing poor classification results.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holtzapple in view of Kresnyak in view of Witte as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wilson (US Patent No. 20160145122 A1) hereinafter Wilson.
Regarding Claim 5, Holtzapple in view of Kresnyak in view of Witte makes obvious the desalination system of claim 1. Holtzapple further teaches the use of the vapor evaporator outlet (Fig. 1, #204) that flows through the compressor (Fig. 1, #50) before flowing into the condenser side of the latent heat exchanger via a condenser inlet (Fig. 1, #208; Paragraph 50) and recycling both brine (Fig. 1, #25) and distilled water (Fig. 1, #27) through sensible heat exchangers (Fig. 1, #100) to preheat the seawater going into the latent heat exchangers (Paragraph 0052). Holtzapple further teaches that the heat engine for the initial steam source may come from waste heat sources (Paragraph 0046).
Holtzapple in view of Kresnyak in view of Witte does not teach wherein the hydroclone includes a jacket, and purged steam from the latent heat exchange is configured to flow into the jacket to ensure high temperature is maintained.
However, Wilson teaches a high temperature water tank (Fig. 1, #102) in the form of a jacket around the hydroclones (i.e., the hydroclone includes a jacket; Fig. 1, #118, 102) for the purpose of carefully controlling the heat such that the process can flash water while sterilizing the unfinished water (i.e., to ensure high temperature is maintained; Paragraphs 0042-0044). Wilson further teaches that the flameless heat source (Fig. 1, #112) that is used to heat the high temperature water tank can comprise an industrial process heat source or a powerplant waste heat source (Paragraph 0036), and that preheating water by flameless methods includes virtually any form of waste heat (i.e., Paragraph 0030).
Wilson is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a water purification system (Abstract) that can treat salt water (Paragraph 0062). While Holtzapple in view of Kresnyak in view of Witte in view of Wilson does not explicitly teach purged steam from the latent heat exchange is configured to flow into the jacket, the sources teach the utilization of existing heat sources such as excess steam, hot distillate, and hot brine for preheating flows and for maintaining heat in critical areas of the evaporation process. According to Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 189 USPQ 257 (1976) the Court held that "[t]he gap between the prior art and respondent’s system is simply not so great as to render the system nonobvious to one reasonably skilled in the art." Id. at 230, 189 USPQ at 261. Following the same rationale, (1) The base device taught by Holtzapple contains a latent heat exchanger/evaporator for generating purified water from a seawater source that receives heat from the return of steam generated from the evaporator section of the evaporator after it has been compressed, where the device would be modified by separating the latent heat exchanger and evaporator into a latent heat exchanger and hydroclone as taught by Kresnyak. Wilson further teaches adding a jacket to the hydroclone to maintain the temperature at a sufficient level to flash evaporate water. (2) Holtzapple teaches the use of hot distillate and brine to preheat the initial seawater stream and the use of waste heat sources for the generation of steam. Wilson teaches the use of waste heat for the use of heating the jacket around the hydroclones. (3) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the hydroclone made obvious by Holtzapple in view of Kresnyak in view of Witte with the jacket taught by Wilson because the jacket would carefully control the temperature of the hydroclone to flash water and sterilize the unfinished water, and it would have been obvious to use existing in the latent heat exchanger because the steam would be the same source of compressed steam as the evaporator originally used in the teachings of Holtzapple, it would just be coming from the hydroclone taught by Kresnyak and a portion would be used to maintain the heat in the jacket as taught by Wilson (See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Furthermore, the limitation “to ensure high temperature is maintained” is directed toward an expected result from the practice or use of the claimed invention and is therefore not subject to patentability. Where the prior art product structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established because the devices meets the limitations of the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP §2111.02 II).
Regarding Claim 6, Holtzapple in view of Kresnyak in view of Witte makes obvious the desalination system of claim 1. Holtzapple in view of Kresnyak in view of Witte does not teach a demister configured to receive the flow that is substantially steam exiting the top of the hydroclone to remove minor amounts of entrained salt.
However, Wilson teaches a steam demister (Fig. 1, #168) used to coalesce and remove contaminated water droplets in the steam (i.e., a demister configured to receive the flow that is substantially steam exiting the top of the hydroclone to remove minor amounts of entrained salt; Paragraph 0042).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the hydroclone as made obvious by Holtzapple in view of Kresnyak in view of Witte with the steam demister as taught by Wilson because the steam demister would remove contaminated water droplets in the steam.
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holtzapple in view of Kresnyak in view of Witte as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Solomon et al (US Patent No. 5472622 A) hereinafter Solomon.
Regarding Claim 8, Holtzapple in view of Kresnyak in view of Witte makes obvious the desalination system of claim 1. Holtzapple in view of Kresnyak in view of Witte does not teach a lock hopper that removes a salt slurry from the quiescent vertical column.
However, Solomon teaches a salt basket (i.e., teach a lock hopper; Fig. 2, #50) which contains an isolation valve (Fig. 2, #I) to start or stop flow of salt crystals into the salt basket and a door (Fig. 1, #106) which retains the salt crystals within the salt basket until the salt is dumped to remove the salt crystals from the crystallizer (i.e., that removes a salt slurry from the quiescent vertical column; Fig. 2, #46; Col. 6, Lines 47-67 to Col. 7, Lines 1-12). Solomon further teaches that the salt basket reduces the expense and energy consumption of drying salt compared to alternative methods (Col. 1, Lines 41-67 to Col. 2, Lines 1-19).
Solomon is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the crystallization of salts and to the application of zero liquid discharge type plants (Col. 1, Lines 5-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process made obvious by Holtzapple in view of Kresnyak in view of Witte with the salt basket as taught by Solomon because the salt basket would reduce the expense and energy consumption of the salt drying process.
Regarding Claim 12, Holtzapple in view of Kresnyak in view of Witte in view of Solomon makes obvious the desalination system of claim 8. Solomon further teaches the use of valves for the automated operation of pressurization and depressurization of the salt basket (i.e., wherein the lock hopper is operatively coupled to a pressure-equalizing valve configured to maintain a pressure differential between the quiescent vertical column and an external salt collection system during salt slurry removal; Col. 8, Lines 36-59).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holtzapple in view of Kresnyak in view of Witte as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schleiffarth (US Patent Application No. 20150360971 A1) hereinafter Schleiffarth.
Regarding Claim 13, Holtzapple in view of Kresnyak in view of Witte makes obvious the desalination system of claim 1. Kresnyak further teaches the removal of a portion of the concentrate through the blowdown stream for the purpose of controlling the desired concentration of contaminants (i.e., monitor salt concentration in the substantially liquid flow and adjust recirculation to the latent heat exchanger based on a predetermined concentration threshold; Col. 5, Line 61 to Col. 6, Line 30).
Holtzapple in view of Kresnyak in view of Witte does not teach a brine concentration sensor positioned at the bottom outlet of the hydroclone, the sensor configured to monitor salt concentration.
However, Schleiffarth teaches a hydrocyclone as an evaporation unit (Fig. 1, #141; Paragraph 0038) in a system (Fig. 1, #100) with density sensors for in communication with a controller (i.e., a brine concentration sensor positioned at the bottom outlet of the hydroclone, the sensor configured to monitor salt concentration; Fig. 1, #114; Paragraph 0027) where the controller controls the desired concentration of the purge stream (Fig. 1, #120; Paragraph 0050) and thus the concentration of the heated circulation stream (Fig. 1, #134; Paragraph 0038).
Schleiffarth is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a concentrator and crystallizer evaporation system (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process as made obvious by Holtzapple in view of Kresnyak in view of Witte to utilize a density sensor because the density sensor would control the concentration of contaminant in the hydrocyclone.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holtzapple in view of Kresnyak in view of Witte as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zmood et al (US Patent Application No. 20120210592 A1) hereinafter Zmood.
Regarding Claim 15, Holtzapple in view of Kresnyak in view of Witte makes obvious the desalination system of claim 1. Holtzapple further teaches compressors with a turndown ratio and operating the compressors over a wide range of speeds (Paragraph 0054) with the compressors driven by an electric motor (i.e., wherein the compressor includes a variable-speed motor; Paragraph 0046).
Holtzapple in view of Kresnyak in view of Witte does not explicitly teach a variable-speed motor configured to adjust compression based on a detected steam flow rate from the hydroclone.
However, Zmood teaches a control system that alters the speed of a compressor that is downstream of an evaporator to compensate for increases in chamber steam pressure, that the compressor feeds an upstream heat exchanger, and that the compressor flow rate is controlled for the purpose of maintaining thermal stability of the heat exchanger and the system overall while aiding in the steam mass balance control as well (i.e., a variable-speed motor configured to adjust compression based on a detected steam flow rate from the hydroclone; Paragraph 0020).
Zmood is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a device for separating a solvent and solute (Abstract) applicable to desalination producing a sodium chloride concentrate in a thermally efficient manner (Paragraph 0003). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the compressor control made obvious by Holtzapple in view of Kresnyak in view of Witte with the inlet steam flow rate as taught by Zmood because the control scheme would improve the thermal stability of the upstream heat exchanger and the overall system.
Furthermore, the limitation “optimizing energy efficiency of the desalination system” is directed toward an expected result from the practice or use of the claimed invention and is therefore not subject to patentability. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)). See MPEP §2112.01(I).
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 04/15/2025 has been entered.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the amendment of claims 1, 4, 7, and 8 and the addition of new claims 9-20 have been acknowledged.
In view of the amendment to the specification, the previous objections to the specification have been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claims 1, 4, and 7, the previous claim objections for claims 1, 4, and 7 have been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment of claim 7, the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) has been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment of claims 7 and 8, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 7 and 8 have been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claim 1, the prior art of the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been changed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 04/15/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues, regarding claim 1, that the newly added limitations are not disclosed in the prior art (Arguments filed 04/15/2025, Page 15-18).
Applicant argues that Kresnyak teaches the reduction of fouling which is redundant to the fouling reduction taught by Holtzapple and thus there is no motivation to combine the references (Page 18, Paragraph 4).
Applicant argues that Gilmer is not analogous art because it pertains to the removal of solids from liquids in a quiescent column during a synthesis gas process (Page 18, Paragraph 5-Page 19, Paragraph 3)
Applicant argues that the newly added claims have support in various paragraphs of the published application listed (Page 19, Paragraph 5-Page 23).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the fact that two references, Holtzapple and Kresnyak, both teach methods of reducing fouling does not mean that one precludes the other. Neither reference teaches that fouling becomes a fully moot point with a zero percent chance of occurring and so one of ordinary skill in the art would use multiple teachings for fouling reduction to reduces the need for cleaning as much as possible.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Gilmer have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely Gilmer for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that there is support for the new dependent claims. See screen shots of the referenced paragraphs below in Patent Application US 20240092659 A1 for which new claims lack support through the published specification.
Regarding claim 10: There is no support for claim 10.
PNG
media_image1.png
178
266
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
42
266
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 11 and 12: There is no support for claims 11 and 12.
PNG
media_image3.png
214
266
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13: There is no support for claim 13.
PNG
media_image4.png
182
264
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14: There is no support for claim 14.
PNG
media_image5.png
216
260
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15: There is no support for claim 15.
PNG
media_image6.png
190
264
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
150
270
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16: There is no support for claim 16.
PNG
media_image8.png
102
262
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17: There is no support for claim 17.
PNG
media_image8.png
102
262
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
44
256
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19: There is no support for claim 19.
PNG
media_image10.png
104
264
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
212
260
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20: There is no support for claim 20.
PNG
media_image8.png
102
262
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
212
260
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. All other arguments have been indirectly addressed.
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, 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
/Ryan B Huang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights