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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 19 MARCH 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 19 MARCH 2026 have been entered.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the amendment of claims 1 and 38, the addition of new claims 43-44, and the cancellation of claims 14 and 39 have been acknowledged.
Pending Claims: 1-6, 8, 11, 13, 21-25, 36, 38, and 40-44
Cancelled Claims: 7, 9-10, 12, 14-20, 24, 26-35, 37, and 39
In view of the amendment to claims 1 and 38, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been modified.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 19 MARCH 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that the newly amended limitation of instant claim 1 regarding ion charge capacity is not taught in the previously cited prior art and that the combination of prior art demonstrate synergistic effects that are not taught in a single reference or combined with each other for improvement and thus instant claim 1 is allowable (Arguments filed 19 MARCH 2026, Page 8 to Page 10, Paragraph 3).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 and the ion charge capacity 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. Furthermore, Applicant acknowledged that the materials used for the ion exchange resin are conventional ion exchange resins during the interview dated 29 JANUARY 2026, and so with the adjustment of these factors being well known in other prior art, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to change these different elements to optimize absorption performance of the ion exchange resin. Therefore, instant claim 1 is not allowable.
Applicant argues that instant claims 43 and 44 include a limitation to exclude the use of a membrane during the method, stating in paragraph 0055 of the instant specification that the ion exchange resins may be enveloped in a filtration membrane and several of the prior art rely upon a membrane for forward osmosis. The prior art is directly contradicted with this limitation and the combination is no longer obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and so claims 43 and 44 are allowable (Arguments filed 19 MARCH 2026, Page 10, Paragraph 4 to Page 11).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner agrees with the Applicant. Reasons for allowance are expanded upon below, but, briefly, prior art teaches that this class of “super absorbent polymers” is known to encounter salt poisoning which is that the absorbency of the polymer is significantly reduced, if not completely removed, in the high salinity conditions required by instant claim 43 and 44. Furthermore, to remedy this problem, forward osmosis is an obvious solution, but this requires a membrane that is selectively permeable to water so that the super absorbent polymers do not encounter these highly saline conditions, or the polymers would be used in a humidification/dehumidification process rather than brine desalination. Therefore, instant claims 43 and 44 are allowable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 13, 25, 36, 38 and 40-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bloch US Patent No. 3234125 A (hereinafter Bloch), in view of Kraytsberg et al US Patent Application No. 20200306695 A1 (hereinafter Kraytsberg), in view of Fleckner et al US Patent Application No. 20180297867 A1 (hereinafter Fleckner), in view of Shimado Japanese Patent No. JP 2007237140 A (hereinafter Shimado), in view of Mitchell et al US Patent No. 6534554 B1 (hereinafter Mitchell).
Regarding Claim 1, Bloch teaches the general process of utilizing an ion exchange resin to absorb water from a saline stream and desorbing the water to produce fresh water. Kraytsberg teaches optimizations to pore size and desorption temperature of the absorbent material, Fleckner teaches the application of polymers as draw solutes in forward osmosis systems to purify high salinity feed streams, and Shimado teaches the use of air to desorb the water from the absorbent material.
Bloch discloses a process for withdrawing water from seawater (i.e., a method for recovering water from a brine stream; Col. 1, Lines 9-39) by a method of mixing a hydrate forming resin (i.e., an ion exchange resin) with an aqueous feedstock solution (i.e., receiving an inlet brine stream comprising water and a solute; Col. 7, Lines 70-75 to Col. 8, Lines 1-3) followed by separating the hydrate of the resinous separating agent from the more concentrated aqueous solution (i.e., producing a concentrated brine stream by contacting the inlet brine stream with an ion exchange resin configured to extract at least a portion of the water from the inlet brine stream; ceasing the contact of the ion exchange resin with the inlet brine stream and the concentrated brine stream; Col. 8, Lines 6-11) followed by heating the hydrated resin to the dehydration temperature and contacting the resin with a vapor in which the resin is insoluble (i.e., evaporating at least a portion of the water contained in the ion exchange resin; Col. 8, Lines 11-45) where the resin is a porous material (i.e., the ion exchange resin comprising a surface layer, a plurality of pores adapted to receive water molecules; Col. 7, Lines 43-69) and the evaporation occurs in a swing reactor (i.e., using an evaporation unit; Col. 10, Example 1, Lines 14-69). Bloch further discloses the use of hot vapor for the removal of water from the hydrate resin (i.e., wherein evaporating at least the portion of the water comprises providing an inlet gas stream; Col. 8, Lines 11-45). Bloch further teaches the use of resins with functional groups including carboxyl, amino, and sulfo groups (i.e., wherein a surface of the ion exchange resin comprises a plurality of functional groups selected from a carboxylic acid, a sulfonic acid, a primary amine, and a combination of two or more thereof; Col. 3, Line 74 to Col. 4, Line 15). Bloch further teaches that polybasic acids such as acrylic acid yield resins having required hydrate forming capacity (i.e., polyacrylic acid; Col 7, Lines 9-29) and discloses copolymerizing with a monomer such as styrene (i.e., wherein the ion exchange resin comprises a polymer selected from polystyrene, polyacrylic acid, and mixtures of two or more thereof Col. 5, Lines 31-46).
Bloch does not teach the ion exchange resin comprising an inner layer, a plurality of pores having an average pore size of about 1 nm to about 50 nm, wherein at least one of the plurality of pores extends from the surface layer to the inner layer, and a providing a temperature ranging from about 15°C to 35°C.
However, Kraytsberg teaches an insoluble draw agent (Paragraph 0112) that is capable of developing osmotic pressure, when dehydrated, that is larger than a soluble draw agent (Paragraph 0111) which can be a stimuli-responsive hydrogel characterized in that it will swell in an aqueous solution and maintain a size-exclusion attribute with a pore size ranging from tenths of nanometers to tenths of microns by modulating the degree of crosslinking (i.e., a plurality of pores having an average pore size of about 1 nm to about 50 nm; Paragraph 0077), that diffusion of water in the bulk of the insoluble draw agent is important to improve the water flux into the hydrogel (i.e., an inner layer; wherein at least one of the plurality of pores extends from the surface layer to the inner layer; Paragraph 0011) and the insoluble draw agent exhibits water uptake in the use of forward osmosis desalination with a critical temperature range of 25°C to 60°C (i.e., a temperature ranging from about 15°C to 35°C) where the absorbed water in the insoluble draw agent will be released upon heating above the critical temperature for the purpose of utilizing waste industrial heat to save costs (Paragraph 0010) and the microstructure of the insoluble draw agent is such that it excludes soluble draw agents from penetrating into the bulk of the insoluble draw agent (Paragraph 0117). Kraytsberg teaches insoluble draw agents which is the same type of material that Bloch teaches.
Kraytsberg is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to forward osmosis for desalination utilizing an insoluble draw agent i.e., a low critical solution temperature hydrogel (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the ion exchange resin as taught by Bloch with crosslinking and pore microstructure of the insoluble draw agent as taught by Kraytsberg because the crosslinking and pore structure would reduce costs by allowing for the utilization of waste heat and would exclude soluble draw agents such as salt from entering the bulk insoluble draw agent material.
Bloch in view of Kraytsberg does not explicitly teach wherein the inlet brine stream comprises a solute concentration level of about 90,000 mg/L to about 300,000 mg/L.
However, Fleckner teaches that reverse osmosis has limited operation effects at more concentrated feed streams (Paragraph 0006), that forward osmosis purification can handle streams with more than 200,000 ppm total dissolved solids (Paragraph 0007), and shows an example in Table 3, Page 24 of a feed water with a 10.0% by weight concentration of solids (i.e., wherein the inlet brine stream comprises a solute concentration level of about 90,000 mg/L to about 300,000 mg/L). Fleckner teaches that forward osmosis systems can recover over 75% of the water on a single pass (Paragraph 0007) and improve the energy efficiency of the desalination (Paragraph 0010).
Fleckner is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to purification of water, including desalination, using forward osmosis (Paragraph 0002). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the feed of the osmosis process made obvious by Bloch in view of Kraytsberg with the feed stream as taught by Fleckner because the feed stream would improve the energy efficiency of the osmosis process as compared to other methods.
Bloch in view of Kraytsberg in view of Fleckner does not explicitly teach wherein evaporating the at least a portion of the water comprises: providing an inlet gas stream having a first relative humidity of less than 100%.
However, Shimado teaches that dry outside air (i.e., providing an inlet gas stream having a first relative humidity of less than 100%) can be introduced into the regeneration device to extract the water from and regenerate the adsorbent (Paragraph 0026, Machine Translation). Shimado teaches that the use of dry outside air obtains fresh water with low energy requirements and energy savings over other methods (Paragraph 0007, Machine Translation).
Shimado is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to an apparatus for converting raw water such as seawater into fresh water (Paragraph 0001, Machine Translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the evaporation step made obvious by Bloch in view of Kraytsberg in view of Fleckner with the evaporation step using dry air taught by Shimado because the dry air would improve the energy savings of the water recovery method.
Bloch in view of Kraytsberg in view of Fleckner in view of Shimado does not teach wherein the ion exchange resin has an ion exchange capacity of at least about 2 milli-equivalents per gram of air-dried resin.
However, Mitchell teaches that microdomains of acidic or basic resin are in close proximity to each other for the purpose of improving permeability both within and between ion exchange particles (Page 12, Lines 3-9) with an example ion exchange capacity of a polyacrylic based resin being 7 meq/q (i.e., the ion exchange resin has an ion exchange capacity of at least about 2 milli-equivalents per gram of air-dried resin; Col. 31, Lines 6-21).
Mitchell is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to multicomponent superabsorbent ion exchange resins for use in the purification of water (Col. 1, Lines 10-21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the ion exchange capacity of the resin made obvious by Bloch in view of Kraytsberg in view of Fleckner in view of Shimado to have a 7 meq/q as taught by Mitchell because the ion exchange resin would have improved permeability.
Furthermore, Bloch in view of Kraytsberg in view of Fleckner in view of Shimado in view of Mitchell does not explicitly teach a plurality of pores having an average pore size of about 1 nm to about 50 nm and the range of inlet gas of 15°C to 35°C for evaporation. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for claimed ranges that overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976))(See MPEP 2144.05(I)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to have selected a pore size and a temperature of air that corresponds to the claimed ranges while experimenting with the ranges made obvious by Bloch in view of Kraytsberg in view of Fleckner in view of Shimado.
Regarding Claim 2, Bloch further teaches that the hydrate forming resin may be in the shape of spheres or other solid shapes (i.e., wherein the ion exchange resin comprises the form of beads; Col. 7, Lines 43-47).
Regarding Claim 3, Bloch further teaches the use of hot vapor for the removal of water from the hydrate resin (i.e., contacting the ion exchange resin with the inlet gas stream to evaporate at least a portion of the water and produce an outlet gas stream having a second relative humidity; Col. 8, Lines 11-45). The phrase “wherein the second relative humidity of the outlet gas stream is greater than the first relative humidity of the inlet gas stream” of the instant claim is inherent in the process of evaporation of water as humidity is the measure of water vapor in air, which will be increasing as water is evaporated.
Regarding Claim 4, Shimado further teaches regenerating the adsorbent by heating to obtain humid air which is then converted into water in a condenser (i.e., recovering water from the outlet gas stream by condensing at least a portion of the water contained in the outlet gas stream using a condenser; Paragraph 0008, Machine Translation).
Regarding Claim 5, Shimado further teaches that the means for regenerating the adsorbent is particularly advantageous in areas with hot and dry outside air that can be used in the regeneration device (i.e., wherein the inlet gas stream comprises air; Paragraph 0026, Machine Translation).
Regarding Claim 6, Shimado further teaches in an example that the outside atmosphere was about 20% relative humidity (i.e., wherein the first relative humidity is less than 20%; Paragraph 0088, Machine Translation). Shimado also references dry outside air for regeneration the adsorbent (Paragraph 0026, Machine Translation) and the term ‘dry air’ conventionally means a range from 0% humidity to low humidity. Bloch in view of Kraytsberg in view of Shimado does not explicitly teach wherein the first relative humidity is less than 20%. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for claimed ranges that overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976))(See MPEP 2144.05(I)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to have selected humidity of air that corresponds to the claimed range while experimenting with the range made obvious by Bloch in view of Kraytsberg in view of Shimado.
Regarding Claim 13, Bloch further teaches that the resin forms a hydrate when in contact (i.e., wherein the ion exchange resin produces the concentrated brine stream by extracting the water via osmosis from the inlet brine stream; Col. 1, Lines 40-53) meaning that the water flows from a high concentration of water in an aqueous solution to attach to a resin which has a low to zero concentration of water, which is the process of osmosis.
Regarding Claim 25, Bloch further teaches that polybasic acids such as acrylic acid yield resins having required hydrate forming capacity (i.e., polyacrylic acid; Col 7, Lines 9-29) and discloses copolymerizing with a monomer such as styrene (i.e., wherein the ion exchange resin comprises a polymer selected from polystyrene, polyacrylic acid, and mixtures of two or more thereof Col. 5, Lines 31-46).
Regarding Claim 36, Fleckner further teaches that forward osmosis purification can handle streams with more than 200,000 ppm total dissolved solids (Paragraph 0007), and describes an example of an input brine stream starting at 7 wt% of solids that is concentrated to beyond 20 wt% of solids after forward osmosis (i.e., wherein the concentrated aqueous stream comprises a solute concentration level of about 150,000 mg/L to about 300,000 mg/L; Paragraph 0232). Fleckner teaches that forward osmosis systems can recover over 75% of the water on a single pass (Paragraph 0007) and improve the energy efficiency of the desalination (Paragraph 0010).
Regarding Claim 38, Bloch further teaches that the arrangement of the resin may be cross-linked or an end-to-end polymer (i.e., wherein the ion exchange resin comprises cross-linked polymers; Col. 4, Lines 39-59).
Mitchell further teaches the use of divinylbenzene as a crosslinker (i.e., wherein the polymers are cross-linked with divinylbenzene; Col. 15, Line 60 to Col. 16, Line 23) and the use of crosslinking agents to modify the swelling and hydration characteristics of ion exchange resins that are superabsorbent polymers such that more crosslinking creates more structural integrity and less crosslinking allows for more polymer swelling and water absorption (Col. 10, Lines 24-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the crosslinking of the hydrate forming resin made obvious by Bloch in view of Kraytsberg in view of Fleckner in view of Shimado with the crosslinking agent divinylbenzene as taught by Mitchell because the crosslinking agent would allow the user to adjust the cross-linking of the polymer to optimize the structural integrity and the swelling/water absorption of the hydrate forming resin.
Regarding Claim 40, Bloch further teaches the use of resins with functional groups including carboxyl, amino, and sulfo groups (i.e., wherein an inner layer of the ion exchange resin comprises one or more functional groups selected from carboxylic acid, a sulfonic acid, a primary amine, and a combination of two or more thereof; Col. 3, Line 74 to Col. 4, Line 15).
Regarding Claim 41, Bloch further teaches the treatment of the polymer with a hydrolyzing aqueous base or acid including hydrochloric acid to convert the resin into a hydrate forming resin (i.e., wherein the ion exchange resin is conditioned with hydrochloric acid; Col. 4, Line 60 to Col. 5, Line 15).
Claims 8, 21-22, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bloch in view of Kraytsberg in view of Fleckner in view of Shimado in view of Mitchell as applied to claims 3 and 1 above, and further in view of Takeuchi US Patent No. 20080295695 A1 (hereinafter Takeuchi).
Regarding Claim 8, Shimado further teaches a system in which sensors for monitoring humidity are disposed in both of the upstream and downstream stages where water vapor from is introduced into the adsorbent and, by monitoring the humidity, an automatic switching device is provided that can set the regeneration time and the air volume of the regeneration device thereby reducing energy consumption (i.e., removing the ion exchange resin from the evaporation unit after the second relative humidity reaches a predetermined value; Paragraph 0053, Machine Translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the swing columns taught by Bloch in view of Kraytsberg in view of Fleckner with the switching device taught by Shimado because the switching device would reduce energy consumption of the process.
Bloch in view of Kraytsberg in view of Fleckner in view of Shimado in view of Mitchell does not teach measuring the second relative humidity of the outlet gas stream using a sensor; wherein the predetermined value is a decrease in the second relative humidity of about 10% or more.
However, Takeuchi teaches a controller portion (Fig. 12, #23) that gets inputs from humidity sensors (Fig. 12, #25, 27, 29) where the third humidity sensor (Fig. 12, #29) is located in the condenser portion (i.e., measuring the second relative humidity of the outlet air stream using a sensor; Fig. 12, #14) of the apparatus and that optimum control of absorption of water and condensation of water can be controlled by comparing humidity values of the outside air and the air in the condenser portion (Paragraphs 0107-0112). Takeuchi further teaches that moisture absorption/release characteristics can be selected as needed and that a drastic change in moisture retention can occur with a relative humidity change of 70% humidity to 85% humidity (i.e., wherein the predetermined value is a decrease in the second relative humidity of about 10% or more; Paragraphs 0068-0069). Takeuchi teaches that the apparatus will save power as much as possible (Paragraph 0008).
Takeuchi is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a moisture absorbent member that absorbs and releases water vapor depending on a change of humidity (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the process for withdrawing water from seawater as made obvious by Bloch in view of Kraytsberg in view of Fleckner in view of Shimado in view of Mitchell with the humidity control as taught by Takeuchi because the humidity control would save power as much as possible.
Regarding Claim 21, Bloch in view of Kraytsberg in view of Fleckner in view of Shimado in view of Mitchell does not teach wherein the ion exchange resin is adapted to have a maximum water capacity at a relative humidity of 80% that is about 50% or less of the maximum water content of the ion exchange resin at a relative humidity of 100%.
However, Takeuchi teaches a water absorbent member that has moisture/absorption characteristics that change based upon the pore size of the water absorbent member (Paragraph 0068) and, as seen in Fig. 31, there are graphs of different water absorbent members where one of the water absorbent members has a water absorption amount of 0.3 grams of water per gram of absorbent at a relative humidity of 80% and has a water absorption amount of 20 grams of water per gram of absorbent at a relative humidity of 100% as the maximum capacity of the absorbent (i.e., a maximum water capacity at a relative humidity of 80% that is about 50% or less of the maximum water content of the ion exchange resin at a relative humidity of 100%; Paragraph 0210). Takeuchi further teaches that the environment in which the air is passed over the water absorbent member can have varying natural humidity conditions of dryer or wetter air and that it is necessary to change the humidity at which the absorbent member absorbs or desorbs water to match this environment (Paragraph 0069) and that the apparatus will save power as much as possible (Paragraph 0008).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the hydrate forming resin made obvious by Bloch in view of Kraytsberg in view of Fleckner in view of Shimado in view of Mitchell with the pore size and humidity/absorption changes taught by Takeuchi because the pore size and humidity/absorption changes would allow the process for withdrawing water from seawater to use the air of the environment and save energy as much as possible.
Regarding Claim 22, Bloch in view of Kraytsberg in view of Fleckner in view of Shimado in view of Mitchell does not teach the ion exchange resin is adapted to have a maximum water capacity at a relative humidity of 20% that is about 30% or less than the maximum water content of the ion exchange resin at a relative humidity of 100%.
However, Takeuchi teaches a water absorbent member that has moisture/absorption characteristics that change based upon the pore size of the water absorbent member (Paragraph 0068) and, as seen in Fig. 31, there are graphs of different water absorbent members where one of the water absorbent members has a water absorption amount of 0.1 grams of water per gram of absorbent at a relative humidity of 20% and has a water absorption amount of about 0.48 grams of water per gram of absorbent at a relative humidity of 100% as the maximum capacity of the absorbent (i.e., the ion exchange resin is adapted to have a maximum water capacity at a relative humidity of 20% that is about 30% or less than the maximum water content of the ion exchange resin at a relative humidity of 100%; Paragraph 0068). Takeuchi further teaches that the environment in which the air is passed over the water absorbent member can have varying natural humidity conditions of dryer or wetter air and that it is necessary to change the humidity at which the absorbent member absorbs or desorbs water to match this environment (Paragraph 0069) and that the apparatus will save power as much as possible (Paragraph 0008).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the hydrate forming resin made obvious by Bloch in view of Kraytsberg in view of Fleckner in view of Shimado in view of Mitchell with the pore size and humidity/absorption changes taught by Takeuchi because the pore size and humidity/absorption changes would allow the process for withdrawing water from seawater to use the air of the environment and save energy as much as possible.
Regarding Claim 42, Bloch in view of Kraytsberg in view of Fleckner in view of Shimado in view of Mitchell does not teach wherein the ion exchange resin is adapted to have a maximum water capacity at a relative humidity of 80% that up to 50% of the maximum water capacity of the ion exchange resin at a relative humidity of 100%.
However, Takeuchi teaches a water absorbent member that has moisture/absorption characteristics that change based upon the pore size of the water absorbent member (Paragraph 0068) and, as seen in Fig. 31, there are graphs of different water absorbent members where one of the water absorbent members has a water absorption amount of 0.3 grams of water per gram of absorbent at a relative humidity of 80% and has a water absorption amount of 20 grams of water per gram of absorbent at a relative humidity of 100% as the maximum capacity of the absorbent (i.e., a maximum water capacity at a relative humidity of 80% that up to 50% of the maximum water capacity of the ion exchange resin at a relative humidity of 100%; Paragraph 0210). Takeuchi further teaches that the environment in which the air is passed over the water absorbent member can have varying natural humidity conditions of dryer or wetter air and that it is necessary to change the humidity at which the absorbent member absorbs or desorbs water to match this environment (Paragraph 0069) and that the apparatus will save power as much as possible (Paragraph 0008).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the hydrate forming resin made obvious by Bloch in view of Kraytsberg in view of Fleckner in view of Shimado in view of Mitchell with the pore size and humidity/absorption changes taught by Takeuchi because the pore size and humidity/absorption changes would allow the process for withdrawing water from seawater to use the air of the environment and save energy as much as possible.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bloch in view of Kraytsberg in view of Fleckner in view of Shimado in view of Mitchell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bozkurt et al US Patent No. 20200102498 A1 (hereinafter Bozkurt).
Regarding Claim 11, Bloch in view of Kraytsberg in view of Fleckner in view of Shimado in view of Mitchell does not teach wherein the ion exchange resin comprises a doping agent, wherein the doping agent is a metal oxide selected from iron oxide, zirconium oxide, copper oxide, and a combination of two or more thereof.
However, Bozkurt teaches that a super absorbing polymer composite may further comprise a mineral, pesticide, or fungicide (Paragraph 0120) such as copper or iron (Paragraph 0121) and that the anionic component may include oxides (i.e., wherein the ion exchange resin comprises a doping agent, wherein the doping agent is a metal oxide selected from iron oxide, zirconium oxide, copper oxide, and a combination of two or more thereof; Paragraph 0125) for the purpose of protecting the water from contamination (Paragraph 0120).
Bozkurt is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to improving water retention with a super absorbing resin composite (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the hydrate forming resin made obvious by Bloch in view of Kraytsberg in view of Fleckner in view of Shimado in view of Mitchell with the composite minerals taught by Bozkurt because the composite minerals would protect the water from contamination by living organisms that exist in water sources such as seawater.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bloch in view of Kraytsberg in view of Fleckner in view of Shimado in view of Mitchell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koslow US Patent No. 20040031749 A1 (hereinafter Koslow).
Regarding Claim 23, Bloch further teaches that the hydrate forming resin may be in the shape of spheres or other solid shapes (i.e., wherein the one or more ion exchange resin has a shape that is substantially spherical; Col. 7, Lines 43-47).
Bloch in view of Kraytsberg in view of Fleckner in view of Shimado in view of Mitchell does not teach wherein the one or more ion exchange resin comprises a plurality of nanofibers.
However, Koslow teaches an anti-microbial structure that includes a plurality of nanofibers (Paragraph 0005) that can be incorporated in a compounded polymeric resin (Paragraph 0006) such as super absorbent polymers and ion-exchange resins (i.e., the one or more ion exchange resin comprises a plurality of nanofibers; Paragraph 0041) for the purpose of inhibiting microbial growth on the surface of the structure in which the anti-microbial structure is incorporated (Paragraph 0010).
Koslow is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to an anti-microbial structure (Paragraph 0005) combined with ion-exchange resins (Paragraph 0023). It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the hydrate forming resin spheres made obvious by Bloch in view of Kraytsberg in view of Fleckner in view of Shimado in view of Mitchell with anti-microbial nanofibers as taught by Koslow because the nanofibers would inhibit the growth of microbial contaminants on the surface of the hydrate forming resin spheres.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 43 and 44 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The instant claims pertain to the use of water absorbent ion exchange resins used to directly contact high salinity brine streams to absorb the water to create a leftover, more concentrated brine and then to release the water from the ion exchange resin using low temperature, low humidity air.
The closest prior art includes Bloch US Patent No. 3234125 A (hereinafter Bloch), Kraytsberg et al US Patent Application No. 20200306695 A1 (hereinafter Kraytsberg), Fleckner et al US Patent Application No. 20180297867 A1 (hereinafter Fleckner), Shimado Japanese Patent No. JP 2007237140 A (hereinafter Shimado), Mitchell et al US Patent No. 6534554 B1 (hereinafter Mitchell), Mahon, R., Balogun, Y., Oluyemi, G. et al. Swelling performance of sodium polyacrylate and poly(acrylamide-co-acrylic acid) potassium salt. SN Appl. Sci. 2, 117 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-019-1874-5 (hereinafter Mahon), Nishida US Patent No. US 6429265 B2 (hereinafter Nishida), and Chan et al US Patent Application No. US 20210045942 A1 (hereinafter Chan). Bloch teaches the general idea of ion exchange resins to absorb water from brine and to regenerate the brine with air, but differentiates in both utilizing a higher temperature for the air regeneration and only contacting the resins with seawater. Kraytsberg teaches that for forward osmosis with a membrane, the resins can be adjusted to release water at a lower temperature. Fleckner teaches that forward osmosis is one of the prevailing technologies for further concentrating high salinity brine streams. Shimado teaches specifically that dry outside air is known to be used for regenerating sorbents that have collected water. Mitchell teaches optimization of crosslinking and that ion capacity of common resins is with the ranges of the instant claims. Nishida teaches polyacrylate moisture absorptive fibers with 1-10 meq/q of ion exchange capacity that can absorb and desorb water based upon humidity differences. Chan teaches super absorbent polymers used for absorbent articles of a similar polymer composition to the instant application and known for low salinity applications.
However, art such as Mahon teaches that it is known for super absorbent polymers to have significantly reduced water absorption in high salinity environments (seen below in Fig. 11), such that salinity drops to near zero at the salinity of the instant claims. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to the super absorbent polymers and see that the absorption curves decrease significantly with increasing salinity and so would be motivated to utilize a membrane as described in the forward osmosis arts in order to avoid the problem, or even look into the humidification/dehumidification arts to absorb/desorb moisture from the air rather than directly from highly concentrated brine. Therefore, it would not be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art would be to arrive at the current methods of instant claims 43 and 44.
PNG
media_image1.png
706
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.A.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights