Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/799,852

APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR LIQUID TREATMENT BY FORWARD OSMOSIS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Aug 15, 2022
Examiner
PATEL, PRANAV N
Art Unit
1777
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Waterwhelm Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allow Rate
433 granted / 637 resolved
+3.0% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+22.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
45 currently pending
Career history
682
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
50.9%
+10.9% vs TC avg
§102
17.0%
-23.0% vs TC avg
§112
26.5%
-13.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 637 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/21/2026 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim(s) 1, 5-8, 13-14, and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchigami et al. (US 2014/0319056A1), in view of McGinnis (US 2012/0067819A1), and Deng (US 2016/0206993). Regarding claim 1, Fuchigami teaches a method of recovering draw agent utilized in a forward osmosis membrane cell (1) used for water purification, the method comprising the steps of: passing diluted draw agent (refer conduit 7) to a vapor-liquid separator (11), the vapor-liquid separator being part of a draw solution fluid circuit (refer draw solution circuit including conduits 6, 7, heat exchangers 16, 17, module 11 and pump 18); using the vapor-liquid separator to separate diluted draw agent into draw agent vapor (in conduit 10) and solvent (in conduit 12); and condensing draw agent vapor (in heat exchanger 16 and 17), thereby recovering the draw agent as a liquid (refer [0130]); and whereby the method does not use a compressor for compressing draw agent in a gas phase (embodiment of fig. 1 does not use compressor; fig. 1 discloses use of heat exchanger). Fuchigami does not teach that a pressure of the draw solution fluid circuit is elevated to greater than atmospheric pressure so that the draw agent vapor is condensed to thereby recover the draw agent as a liquid. McGinnis teaches a method recovery draw agent, the method comprising passing diluted draw agent to a vapor-liquid separator (refer fig. 5 indicating vapor-liquid separator 22), using vapor-liquid separator to separate the diluted draw agent into draw agent vapor and solvent (refer [0086] disclosing variety of vapor-liquid separators separating draw agent vapor). McGinnis discloses (in [0086]) a membrane contactor as vapor-liquid separator and discloses that pressure is used to cause liquid and gas stream to flow, as would be done in pipes with liquid or gas only. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the method of Fuchigami to use membrane contactor for separation of draw agent vapor and elevate pressure of draw solution fluid circuit because McGinnis discloses that it is advantageous to use membrane contactor because membrane contactors allows significant reduction in footprint and height requirements. It is well known in the art that membrane contactors operate at pressure higher than atmospheric pressure. This is also evidenced by Deng (refer [0063], [0065]). Regarding claim 5, modified Fuchigami teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. McGinnis further teaches using thermal energy to separate draw agent from solvent (refer [0084]). McGinnis uses membrane contactor wherein draw agent vapor is absorbed into a solvent (refer [0086]), and therefore does not require a compressor. Regarding claim 6, modified Fuchigami teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Fuchigami teaches that the diluted draw agent is heated prior to passing to the vapor-liquid separator (Refer heat exchanger 16 prior to vapor liquid separator 11). Regarding claim 7, modified Fuchigami teaches limitations of claim 6 as set forth above. Fuchigami teaches that heat from solvent separated in the vapor-liquid separator is used to heat the diluted draw agent prior to passing to the vapor-liquid separator (refer heat exchanger 16 using heated fluid from conduit 10 exchanging heat with diluted draw solution in conduit 7). Regarding claim 8, modified Fuchigami teaches limitations of claim 7 as set forth above. In embodiment of fig. 3, Fuchigami teaches that the heated diluted draw solution is further heated by an additional heater using an external heat source (refer fig. 3 disclosing use of sunlight to supply heat to reboiler 15). Regarding claim 13, modified Fuchigami teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Fuchigami teaches that the draw agent comprises ammonia (Refer [0081]). Regarding claim 14, modified Fuchigami teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Fuchigami teaches that the solvent is water (refer abstract). Regarding claim 16, modified Fuchigami teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Deng discloses that pressure of at least 20 bar may be used (Refer [0063]). Regarding claim 17, modified Fuchigami teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. It would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the membrane contactor in horizontal position or vertical position. Using the membrane contactor in horizontal position results in vapor being collected and condensed in upper portion of the contactor. Regarding claims 18-19, modified Fuchigami teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. McGinnis (refer [0086]) and Deng (refer [0063])discloses that the solvent is pressurized, wherein the condensed draw agent vapor which has been recovered as a liquid is mixed with the pressurised solvent. Regarding claim 20, modified Fuchigami teaches limitations of claim 18 as set forth above. McGinnis (refer [0086]) and Deng (refer [0063])discloses that the solvent is pressurized. Selecting the pressure of the solvent would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Regarding claim 21, modified Fuchigami teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. McGinnis (refer [0086]) discloses pressurizing the solvent in which draw agent is condensed. McGinnis also teaches supplying the solvent with the draw agent back to forward osmosis module (Refer fig. 5). Selecting to maintain a pressure in the draw solution return would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to convey the draw solution in the draw solution fluid circuit. Regarding claim 22, modified Fuchigami teaches limitations of claim 18 as set forth above. Fuchigami discloses condensing draw agent vapor (in heat exchanger 16 and 17). McGinnis also discloses that additionally or alternatively, a condenser may then be used to condense all or a portion of the vapors (Refer [0091]). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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. The limitation “a pressure of the draw solution fluid circuit is elevated to greater than atmospheric pressure so that the draw agent vapor is condensed to thereby recover the draw agent as a liquid” is taught by McGinnis (Refer claim rejection above). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRANAV PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-4PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /PRANAV N PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 15, 2022
Application Filed
Mar 26, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 29, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 30, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jan 21, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 27, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600689
Organic Material Liquid Dehydration Method
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12582923
Annular Centrifugal Extractor with Solid Separation Part to Separate Solid Particles Present in Solvent Extraction Fluid and a Process for the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577104
CONCENTRATION OF SULFURIC ACID
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570937
MASH FILTER MEMBRANE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570537
PROCESSES FOR RECOVERING LITHIUM VALUES FROM LITHIUM-CONTAINING BRINES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
68%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+22.2%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 637 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month