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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended claims 1 and 4 and canceled claim 3. Claims 1, 2, and 4-8 are pending.
The amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(a) rejections of record.
The amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections of record. However, following further consideration, the amendments to the claims have been found to necessitate new rejections under 112(b). See 112(b) rejections below for details.
The amendments to the claims have necessitated new 103 rejections. See 103 rejections below for details.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7 of Remarks, filed 11/19/2025, with respect to the 112(a) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant has argued that the amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(a) rejections of record. Therefore, the 112(a) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8 of Remarks, filed 11/19/2025, with respect to the 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant has argued that the amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections of record. Therefore, the 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
However, following further consideration, the amendments to the claims have been found to necessitate new rejections under 112(b). See 112(b) rejections below for details.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-10 of Remarks, filed 11/19/2025, with respect to the 103 rejections of claims 4-8 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that “The cited combination fails to disclose or suggest the claimed parallel, dual-pressure-exchanger configuration in combination with a three-way countercurrent heat exchanger that provides independent routing paths for separate product streams,” (page 8 of the 11/19/2025 Remarks). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As an initial matter, Examiner notes that the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
As explained in detail in the 103 rejection of claim 4 set forth in the 5/19/2025 Non-Final Rejection, the combination of the Orlik and Redenbaugh references would, to one of ordinary skill in the art, suggest the claimed “parallel, dual-pressure-exchanger configuration in combination with a three-way countercurrent heat exchanger that provides independent routing paths for separate product streams” (see pages 25-31 of the 5/19/2025 Non-Final Rejection, especially pages 27 and 28).
Applicant argues that “Each cited reference operates on a single stream in series flow or under balanced-pressure conditions, which does NOT provide motivation or suggestion for the parallel, multi-level pressure operation in the claimed invention,” (page 8 of the 11/19/2025 Remarks).
This argument fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because it amounts to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. While Examiner understands that referenced parallel operation of the claimed invention likely refers to the claimed first and second pressure exchangers, it is unclear which claimed feature(s) correspond to the “multi-level pressure operation” mentioned by Applicant.
Furthermore, it is not clear what Applicant means when he alleges that the cited references operate under “balanced-pressure conditions”, nor is it clear how such operation is distinguished from the claimed invention.
Applicant has argued that “Orlik and Rendbaugh fail to suggest parallel operation of multiple pressure exchangers, division of the feed prior to feeding, or separate-return path,” (page 9 of the 11/19/2025 Remarks). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As a first initial matter, Examiner notes that the division of feed prior to feeding is recited only in dependent claim 5. Thus, even if Orlik and Rendbaugh do fail to suggest such division of feed, such failure is only relevant to the rejection of dependent claim 5.
As a second initial matter, Examiner presumes “separate-return path” refers to the system being arranged to transport first and second fluids from the reactor into, respectively, first and second paths of the countercurrent heat exchanger.
As described in the 103 rejection of claim 4 set forth in the previous Office Action, primary refence Orlik teaches a system wherein “the reactor 32 is configured to: the reactor is configured to: (i) receive the liquid feed mixture and heat the liquid feed mixture to a temperature enough for separation of the first liquid into a supercritical state, such that (ii) the first fluid (“vapor”) is transported into a first path 326 of the countercurrent heat exchanger 31, and (iii) the second fluid (residue) is transported into a second path 327 of the countercurrent heat exchanger 31; (abstract, Figures 2A, 3A, 4, 5, 6, Columns 8-11; emphasis on column 8 lines 37-47, Column 9 Line 63-Column 10 Line 3, and column 11 Lines 39-41),” (page 25 of the 5/19/2025 Non-Final Rejection). Thus it is clear that Orlik teaches “separate return paths”.
As further discussed in the 103 rejection of claim 4 set forth in the previous Office Action, Redenbaugh teaches a critical pressure distillation system (Column 1 Lines 10-20, Column 1 Line 50-Column 2 line 25, Column 4 Lines 38-52) having “an embodiment (that of Figure 15) comprising a first pump (balanced pressure pump) 246 which operates a first pressure exchanger and a second pump (balanced pressure pump) 250 which operates as a second pressure exchanger; wherein the first pressure exchanger 246 pumps and exchanges pressure between a liquid feed mixture (salt water to be treated) and a first outgoing liquid, the first outgoing liquid being distillate (fresh water); and wherein the second pressure exchanger 250 pumps and exchanges pressure between the liquid feed mixture (salt water to be treated) and a second outgoing liquid, the second outgoing liquid being a residue (brine water) (Figure 15, Column 16 Lines 18-40),” (page 28 of the 5/19/2025 Office Action). Thus, it is clear that Redenbaugh teaches parallel operation of multiple pressure exchangers.
As for the division of the feed prior to feeding, it is implicit in a system comprising multiple parallel pressure exchangers, like that of Redenbaugh Figure 15, that the feed will be divided prior to feeding. Clearly, in such a system the liquid feed mixture (salt water to be treated) is necessarily divided prior to feeding, as said liquid feed mixture must be divided in order to be successfully fed to the first and second pressure exchangers (pumps).
As discussed in the 103 rejection of claim 4 set forth in the previous Office Action (see Page 27 thereof), Orlik teaches that “It is preferred that the water pump is adapted such that the energy used for pumping raw water into the heat exchanger and the separator is recovered as much as possible when the water is withdrawn again,” (Column 10 Lines 34-38). This teaching would at least suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that it would be desirable for the pump 20 act as a pressure exchanger.
Furthermore, as discussed in the 103 rejection of claim 4 set forth in the previous Office Action (see Page 28 thereof), the first outgoing liquid in Olrik is a distillate, and the second outgoing liquid is a residue (abstract, Figures 3A, 4, 5, 6, Columns 9-11; emphasis on Column 10 Line 29-Column 11 Line 1). As discussed above, Redenbaugh teaches a critical pressure distillation system with two separate pumps which act as pressure exchangers, wherein a first one of said pumps (acting as a pressure exchanger) exchanges pressure between a distillate and a liquid feed mixture, and a second one of said pumps (acting as a pressure exchanger) exchanges pressure between a residue and a liquid feed mixture.
With the forgoing in mind, the combined teachings of Orlik and Redenbaugh would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that the single pump of Orlik could be replaced with a two separate pumps, acting as pressure exchangers, so at to yield a workable system (understood to be workable in view of Redenbaugh), wherein said pumps recover energy used for pumping raw water into the heat exchanger when the water is withdrawn again (as is desired/suggested in base Olrik). The system of Orlik, if modified in this manner would necessarily divide the feed prior to feeding (i.e. prior to feeding into the pumps) and would still include separate return paths for the first and second fluids if modified in this manner. Thus, the combined teachings of Orlik and Redenbaugh suggest “parallel operation of multiple pressure exchangers, division of the feed prior to feeding, [and] separate return paths”.
Applicant has argued that in “Lee there is no teaching or suggestion of these features in claim 4: parallel exchangers, three-way countercurrent operation, or independent routing,” (page 9 of the 11/19/2025 Remarks). Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive, as Lee is not relied upon to teach these features. Instead, Lee is relied upon merely to establish that it would be obvious to further modify Orlik by add several pumps thereto (see 103 rejection of claim 4 below for details).
Applicant has alleged that modifying the cited reference to meet the limitations of the claims would result in changes to their principle of operation. More specifically, applicant has argued that “Reconfiguring the cited references from series operation to the claimed parallel, multi-level configuration would not represent a routine optimization. Fundamental alteration in how the exchangers interact, the direction and routing of the flow, and the underlying energy-recovery mechanism, would amount to modification that constitutes a change in the principle of operation of the cited references,” (page 9 of the 11/19/2025 Remarks). Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
According to the MPEP, “If the proposed modification or combination of the prior art would change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, then the teachings of the references are not sufficient to render the claims prima facie obvious. In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813, 123 USPQ 349, 352 (CCPA 1959)” (MPEP 2143.01 VI; emphasis added). Bearing in mind the precise wording of said standard as quoted from the MPEP, Examiner respectfully asserts that it is clear that said standard is only relevant in instances where a particular proposed modification to would change the principle of operation of the specifically the prior art invention that is being modified. In other words, said standard is only applicable when a modification proposed in a 103 rejection would change the principle of operation of the primary reference which is being modified.
In this case, the 103 rejections rely on Orlik as the primary reference, and the proposed modifications therein are modifications to Orlik. Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive at least because it does not specifically point out which of the proposed modifications to Orlik would result in a change to the operating principle in Orlik, nor do they clearly point out which operating principle is supposedly altered.
Regardless, Examiner believes it is Applicant’s intent to argue that the proposed modifications to Orlik change Orlik’s operating principles by allegedly changing Orlik’s operation from a series operation to a parallel operation and by changing Orlik’s operation from an allegedly single, balanced pressure operation to an allegedly multi-level pressure operation. Even when Applicant’s argument is given this favorable operation, it remains unpersuasive.
It is questionable whether Orlik can be said to operate in a series flow configuration to any greater extent than the modified Orlik proposed in the rejections. For that matter, there is little basis to argue that Orlik operates in a series flow configuration to any extent more than Applicant’s invention (including the invention as disclosed in the specification).
Regardless, changing a system’s flow arrangement from series to parallel, or from not parallel to parallel, does not amount to a change in operating principle.
It is unclear what exactly Applicant means by “single, balanced pressure operation” and “multi-level pressure operation”.
Regardless, Orlik’s already operates with multiple different pressure levels prior to any modification, i.e. pressure upstream of the pump 20 is different than pressure downstream of the pump.
Applicant has argued that “The parallel exchangers, three-way countercurrent operation, or independent routing of claimed invention are not suggested in the cited references,” (page 10 of the 11/19/2025 Remarks).
This argument fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because it amounts to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. While Examiner understands that referenced parallel exchangers of the claimed invention refers to the claimed first and second pressure exchangers, it is unclear which claimed feature(s) correspond to the “three-way countercurrent operation” and the ”independent routing”.
Examiner presumes “independent routing”, like the earlier argued “separate-return path”, refers to the system being arranged to transport first and second fluids from the reactor into, respectively, first and second paths of the countercurrent heat exchanger.
Examiner presumes “three-way countercurrent operation” refers to the three-way countercurrent heat exchanger.
As described in the 103 rejection of claim 4 set forth in the previous Office Action, primary refence Orlik teaches a system comprising: “A three-way countercurrent heat exchanger 31 configured to receive the liquid feed mixture from the pump 21 and to transport the liquid feed mixture to the heater 32 (abstract, Figures 3A, 4, 5, 6, Columns 9-11),” (page 25 of the 5/19/2025 Non-Final Rejection). Thus, it is clear that Orlik teaches “three-way countercurrent operation”.
As described in the 103 rejection of claim 4 set forth in the previous Office Action, primary refence Orlik teaches a system wherein “the reactor 32 is configured to: the reactor is configured to: (i) receive the liquid feed mixture and heat the liquid feed mixture to a temperature enough for separation of the first liquid into a supercritical state, such that (ii) the first fluid (“vapor”) is transported into a first path 326 of the countercurrent heat exchanger 31, and (iii) the second fluid (residue) is transported into a second path 327 of the countercurrent heat exchanger 31; (abstract, Figures 2A, 3A, 4, 5, 6, Columns 8-11; emphasis on column 8 lines 37-47, Column 9 Line 63-Column 10 Line 3, and column 11 Lines 39-41),” (page 25 of the 5/19/2025 Non-Final Rejection). Thus, it is clear that Orlik teaches “independent routing”.
As discussed in detail above, the combined teachings of Orlik and Redenbaugh would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that the single pump of Orlik could be replaced with a two separate pumps, acting as pressure exchangers, so at to yield a workable system (understood to be workable in view of Redenbaugh), wherein said pumps recover energy used for pumping raw water into the heat exchanger when the water is withdrawn again (as is desired/suggested in base Olrik). The system of Orlik, if modified in this manner would necessarily divide the feed prior to feeding (i.e. prior to feeding into the pumps) and would still include separate return paths for the first and second fluids if modified in this manner.
Thus, the combined teachings of Orlik and Redenbaugh suggest “the parallel exchangers, three-way countercurrent operation, [and] independent routing of claimed invention”.
Applicant has argued that “The substantial reconstruction needed to reproduce the claimed invention based on the combined references would preclude a person of ordinary skill in the art from adopting the teaching therein.”
Respectfully, this argument is merely a statement of Applicant’s opinion and thus, carries little weight. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s opinion on this matter and maintains that it would have been obvious to modify the Orlik references in the proposed manner to arrive at the claimed invention. See 103 rejections below for details.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-5 of Declaration, filed 11/19/2025, with respect to the alleged inoperability of Thorssell have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has filed declaration on 11/19/2025 alleging that Thorssell is inoperative (see pages 1-5 of Declaration).
With respect, Examiner has had difficulty following Applicant’s reasoning on this matter. Nevertheless, it seems that Applicant believes Thorssell to be inoperable principally on the basis that Thorssell’s reactor (distillation vessel) 1 allegedly overheats generated supercritical fresh water, thereby preventing production of additional supercritical freshwater and potentially causing the supercritical freshwater to be reabsorbed by the feed mixture. Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
It seems that Applicant’s reasoning is based on the assumption that heating the supercritical fresh water generated in the reactor to a higher temperature will favor reabsorption of the freshwater into the feed mixture. Specifically, Applicant alleges heating the supercritical fresh water will increase the chemical potential µf of the supercritical fresh water, leading to a µc=µf condition where no additional supercritical freshwater is produced, or a µc<µf condition wherein supercritical freshwater is absorbed into the feed mixture (see page 3 of the Declaration). With respect, Examiner does not accept this as being true.
Examiner expects that heating of supercritical fresh water to a higher temperature will at least favor it remaining as supercritical fresh water and not being reabsorbed. Likewise, Examiner expects that heating of supercritical fresh water will not prevent the production of further supercritical fresh water. Indeed, when considering normal distillation or evaporation, heating an evaporated vapor does not cause it to be reabsorbed into the liquid phase, nor does it prevent further evaporation. Would not the same be true for a supercritical fresh water phase in a supercritical distillation/desalination process?
The burden of proof here is on Applicant. Although Applicant has filed a declaration, there is no hard evidence (e.g. experimental data or scientific literature) in the record which supports Applicant’s assertion that overheating of the supercritical water will halt the production of additional supercritical fresh water and/or cause the supercritical fresh water to be reabsorbed. Accordingly, Examiner presently regards said assertion as opinion evidence (see MPEP 716.01(c)III).
Furthermore, Examiner has reviewed relevant prior art literature on the subject of supercritical water desalination/distillation and has found evidence which supports his own position on this matter. Specifically, Examiner points to Odu et al. (“Design of a Process for Supercritical Water Desalination with Zero Liquid Discharge”; DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b00826) which is concerned with supercritical water desalination (abstract). Odu discloses the results of phase equilibrium experiments carried out on aqueous NaCl solutions at supercritical temperatures and pressures (section 3, Figures 4 and 5; especially Figure 5). These experiments by Odu were in agreement with previously generated phase diagrams (see Figure 5) showing the equilibrium behavior of NaCl solutions at supercritical pressures (250 bar and 300 bar) and a range of supercritical temperatures (section 3, especially paragraph 3 thereof). These phase diagrams clearly show that increasing the temperature of the salt solution favors production of a supercritical water “vapor” phase and shrinking of the “liquid” solution phase, with said “liquid” phase disappearing entirely and being replaced with a solid phase at high enough temperatures. Furthermore, the shrinking and disappearance of the “liquid” phase at progressively higher supercritical temperatures is shown photographically in Figure 4.
As outlined above, Odu shows that higher temperatures favor production of a supercritical water “vapor” phase and shrinking/disappearance of the “liquid” solution from which it is generated. This indicates that overheating supercritical fresh water in a supercritical water distillation/desalination process will not halt the production of additional supercritical fresh water, nor will it cause the supercritical fresh water to be reabsorbed.
Regardless, for the sake of argument, if we are to assume that overheating the supercritical freshwater is actually detrimental to the further production of fresh water, Applicant’s argument implicitly relies on the notion that such overheating necessarily occurs in Thorssell. However, in order for such overheating to occur, it is necessary that the residence time of supercritical water in the reactor be long enough and the heating rate be fast enough to achieve said overheating. There is not sufficient evidence in the record to conclude that the residence time and heating rate in the reactor of Thorssell necessarily lead to overheating of supercritical fresh water. Thus, there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that the allegedly detrimental overheating necessarily occurs in Thorssell. Accordingly, even if overheating the supercritical water is detrimental in the alleged manner, Applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to prove Thorssell inoperable.
Lastly, it seems that Applicant’s allegation of inoperability is ultimately based on the fact that Thorssell’s reactor 1 is encompassed by the heater. More specifically, it seems that Applicant’s argument is reliant on the notion that a heater which encompasses the reactor, because it will heat the top portion of said reactor, will necessarily overheat the supercritical fresh water phase contained in said top portion. However, Odu discloses a supercritical water distillation/desalination system which features a reactor encompassed by a heater, i.e. an oven (Figure 3). Odu indicates that said system was used to perform phase equilibrium experiments (Section 2.1.2, Figure 3 caption), the results of which are shown in Odu’s Figure 5 (section 3). Thus, Odu’s disclosure indicates that a reactor encompassed by a heater can successfully carry out supercritical water distillation/desalination. The fact that Odu’s Figure 3 is operable serves as evidence that Thorssell is also operable.
In view of the above, the presumption that Thorssell is operative stands.
Applicant’s remarks, see section titled “Operating Pressure of Instant Application” on pages 5-6 of Declaration, filed 11/19/2025, with respect to the operating pressure of the present invention are acknowledged.
Applicant’s remarks, see section titled “Reactor Process of the Instant Application” on pages 6-7 of Declaration, filed 11/19/2025, with respect to the temperature of the present invention are acknowledged.
The following are new rejections necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 and 2 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 second temperature" in lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the liquid feed mixture going into the reactor mixture" in lines 28-29. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the reactor mixture" in line 29. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 is rejected due to its dependency on indefinite claim 1.
The following include new rejections necessitated by amendment.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stroud et al. (US 2020/0010349), hereafter referred to as Stroud.
With regard to claims 1 and 2: Stroud teaches a system configured for distillation, desalination, or concentration of fluid applications (Figure 2, paragraphs [0049]-[0060]), the system comprising:
A reactor (supercritical reactor) 208, wherein the reactor may be configured to be a heater, i.e. the feed heater 206 may be incorporated into the reactor 208 (Figure 2, paragraphs [0049]-[0060], especially paragraph [0053]).
A first feed line configured to deliver a liquid feed mixture (waste feed) into the system at a first pressure and an entering temperature, wherein the liquid feed mixture comprises a fluid (water), wherein the fluid is vaporizable and separable in the system (Figure 2, paragraphs [0049]-[0060], especially paragraph [0051]).
A pressure exchanger 202 configured to change a fluid pressure of the liquid feed mixture from the first pressure to a second pressure, the second pressure being a supercritical pressure (Figure 2, paragraphs [0049]-[0060], especially paragraph [0051]).
A countercurrent heat exchanger (recovery heat exchanger system) 204 configured to receive the liquid feed mixture from the pressure exchanger 202 and receive the fluid from the reactor 208 (Figure 2, paragraphs [0049]-[0060]).
Wherein the reactor is configured to receive the liquid feed mixture at a second temperature and, at least in embodiments wherein the feed heater 206 is incorporated into the reactor 208 (as is disclosed in paragraph [0053]), heat the liquid feed mixture to a temperature above a critical temperature of the fluid at the second pressure, thereby bringing the fluid present in the reactor to a state above the critical temperature (Figure 2, paragraphs [0049]-[0060]).
Wherein the reactor is configured to receive the fluid from the reactor 208 at the second pressure, such that the liquid feed mixture is cooled without a condenser apparatus in the countercurrent heat exchanger 204 to a temperature below the critical temperature (Figure 2, paragraphs [0049]-[0060], especially paragraph [0055]).
Wherein the pressure exchanger 202 is configured to receive the fluid in the liquid state from the heat exchanger 204, such that the pressure exchanger reduces a pressure of the fluid in the liquid state to the first pressure, thereby outputting the fluid in a liquid state at an exiting temperature and the first pressure (Figure 2, paragraphs [0049]-[0060], especially paragraph [0056]).
Wherein the exiting temperature is above the entering temperature, i.e. the entering temperature is “approximately 25 °C” (paragraph [0051]) and the exiting temperature is “between 25 °C and 50 °C” (paragraph [0055]).
The liquid feed mixture necessarily has a temperature when it enters the reactor 208, as does the liquid feed mixture that has already entered the reactor. At least in embodiments wherein the feed heater 206 is incorporated into the reactor 208 (as is disclosed in paragraph [0053]), there is necessarily a gap between said two temperatures. Accordingly, in Stroud, there is necessarily a first gap that is a temperature difference between the temperature of the liquid feed mixture entering the reactor and the temperature of the liquid feed mixture already within the reactor.
The liquid feed mixture within the reactor necessarily has a temperature, as does fluid over the liquid feed mixture leaving the reactor. Though it is not explicitly taught, it is understood that there is necessarily a gap between said two temperatures because: 1) The fluid over the liquid feed mixture leaving the reactor will necessarily cool to a small degree as it flows from the reactor 208 into pipe/conduit which conveys said fluid to the heat exchanger 204, i.e. due to heat loss through the wall of said pipe/conduit; and ii) Applicant’s declaration, filed 11/19/2025, appears to agree that supercritical fresh water over a liquid feed mixture will necessarily be at a different (lower) temperature than the liquid feed mixture, i.e. on page 3 of the declaration, Applicant asserts “It [transfer of heat to the supercritical fresh water] because the concentrated brine in cases of equilibrium and distillation process… has higher temperature than supercritical fresh water”. Accordingly, in Stroud, there is necessarily a second gap that is a temperature difference between temperature of the liquid feed mixture in the reactor and the fluid over the liquid feed mixture leaving the reactor.
The system of Stroud may further comprise a pump (not shown in Figure) for circulating the liquid feed mixture (paragraph [0051]).
Stroud does not explicitly teach that the second gap and the first gap maximize efficiency of the system.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the magnitude of the first gap (i.e. the temperature difference between liquid feed entering the reactor and liquid feed within the reactor) is a result effective variable which directly impacts the efficiency of Stroud’s system. More specifically, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, at least in embodiments wherein the feed heater 206 is incorporated into the reactor 208, the magnitude of the first gap is a correlates with the amount of heat supplied by the heater 206, and consequently with the amount of energy said heater uses. To elaborate, the greater the amount of heat supplied by the heater 206, the greater temperature difference and thus the magnitude of the first gap. When the heater supplies more heat, it is understood that it will use more energy. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, to maximize the energy efficiency of the system, the magnitude of the first gap should be minimized.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that minimizing the magnitude of the first gap could be achieved by engineering the system such that: 1) the liquid feed mixture is supplied to the reactor at a temperature as close as possible to the desired/necessary temperature of the feed mixture in the reactor, and 2) any overheating of the feed mixture in the reactor by the heater 206 is minimized. It is well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to engineer a system to achieve such engineering.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Stroud by optimizing (minimizing) the magnitude of the first gap in order to maximize the energy efficiency of the system, i.e. by minimizing the amount of heating carried out by the heater 206.
As for the second gap, a person having ordinary skill in the art would also recognize that the magnitude of the second gap (i.e. the temperature difference between liquid feed mixture in the reactor and the fluid over said liquid feed mixture leaving said reactor) is a result effective variable which directly impacts the efficiency of Stroud’s system. More specifically, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would be desirable to avoid the magnitude of the second gap becoming too large due to loss of heat from the fluid prior to said fluid passing through the heat exchanger 204. To elaborate, the more heat lost from the fluid prior to said fluid entering the heat exchanger, the less heat will be available for recovery and heating of incoming fluid in the heat exchanger. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, to maximize the energy efficiency of the system, the magnitude of the second gap should be minimized.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that minimizing the magnitude of the first gap could be achieved by, for example: 1) insulating the reactor 208, 2) insulating the pipe/conduit which conveys said fluid to the heat exchanger 204, and/or 3) minimizing the length of said pipe/conduit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Stroud by optimizing (minimizing) the magnitude of the second gap in order to maximize the energy efficiency of the system, i.e. by minimizing the amount of heat lost from the fluid exiting the reactor 208 prior to said fluid entering heat exchanger 204.
Claim(s) 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olrik (US 5,591,310), in view of Redenbaugh (US 3,096,255), and Lee et al. (US 2005/0006317), hereafter referred to as Lee.
With regard to claim 4: Olrik teaches a distillation system (abstract, Figures 3A, 4, 5, 6, Columns 9-11), the distillation system comprising:
A reactor (separation section) 32, wherein the reactor 32 is configured to be a heater (abstract, Figures 3A, 4, 5, 6, Columns 9-11). Note: The separation section 32 is a reactor at least in that it is a physical reactor, i.e. a reactor which carries out a physical reaction (induces a physical change) (abstract, Figures 3A, 4, 5, 6, Columns 9-11).
A first feed line configured to deliver a liquid feed mixture (raw water) 10 into the system at a first pressure and a first temperature (abstract, Figures 3A, 4, 5, 6, Columns 9-11).
A pump 20 configured to change a fluid pressure of the liquid feed mixture from the first pressure to a pressure of the pump 20 (the water which vaporizes in the heater 32) is water (abstract, Figures 3A, 4, 5, 6, Columns 9-11; emphasis on Column 10 Lines 30-50).
A three-way countercurrent heat exchanger 31 configured to receive the liquid feed mixture from the pump 21 and to transport the liquid feed mixture to the heater 32 (abstract, Figures 3A, 4, 5, 6, Columns 9-11).
Wherein the reactor 32 is configured to: the reactor is configured to: (i) receive the liquid feed mixture and heat the liquid feed mixture to a temperature enough for separation of the first liquid into a supercritical state, such that (ii) the first fluid (“vapor”) is transported into a first path 326 of the countercurrent heat exchanger 31, and (iii) the second fluid (residue) is transported into a second path 327 of the countercurrent heat exchanger 31; (abstract, Figures 2A, 3A, 4, 5, 6, Columns 8-11; emphasis on column 8 lines 37-47, Column 9 Line 63-Column 10 Line 3, and column 11 Lines 39-41).
Wherein the countercurrent heat exchanger is further configured to cool the first fluid in a supercritical state thereby obtaining a first fluid in a liquid state, wherein the first fluid in the liquid state is transported to the pump 20 (abstract, Figures 2A, 3A, 4, 5, 6, Columns 8-11; emphasis on column 9 lines 15-20).
Wherein the countercurrent heat exchanger is further configured to cool the first fluid in a supercritical state thereby obtaining a first fluid in a liquid state, wherein the first fluid in the liquid state is transported to the pump 20 (abstract, Figures 2A, 3A, 4, 5, 6, Columns 8-11; emphasis on column 9 lines 15-20).
And wherein the first pressure is lower than the pressure of the pump 20 (the water which vaporizes in the heater 32) is water (abstract, Figures 3A, 4, 5, 6, Columns 9-11; emphasis on Column 10 Lines 30-50).
Note: Although the disclosure of Olrik does not explicitly describe the cooling of the first fluid in the countercurrent heat exchanger 31 as being what results in the first fluid being converted to the first fluid in the liquid state, it is understood that such is the case.
In the unlikely alternative, the claim language regarding the countercurrent heat exchanger cooling the first fluid so as to convert the first fluid into the first fluid in the liquid state is merely a statement of intended use/manner of operating the claimed system. Statements of intended use/manner of operating do not distinguish systems claims from prior art systems capable of use/function claimed manner (MPEP 2114). The countercurrent heat exchanger 31 in Olrik is capable of operating so as to cool the first fluid so as to convert the first fluid into the first fluid in the liquid state. Therefore, Olrik satisfies the claim language regarding the countercurrent heat exchanger cooling the first fluid so as to convert the first fluid into the first fluid in the liquid state is merely a statement of intended use/manner of operating the claimed system (see MPEP 2114 for guidance).
In the unlikely alternative, i.e. in the unlikely event that: i) the first fluid is not converted to the first fluid in the liquid state by the countercurrent heat exchanger, AND ii) the countercurrent heat exchanger is not capable of operating so as to convert to the first fluid in the liquid state, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the countercurrent heat exchanger is the component of Olrik best suited to cooling the first fluid into the first fluid in the liquid state so as to “phase shift” the distillate from vapor to liquid as disclosed in column 9 lines 15-20 of Olrik. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that by cooling the first fluid into the first fluid in the liquid state using the countercurrent heat exchanger 31, a large amount of heat energy will be advantageously recovered from the first fluid into the liquid feed mixture.
In the unlikely event that: i) the first fluid is not converted to the first fluid in the liquid state by the countercurrent heat exchanger, AND ii) the countercurrent heat exchanger is not capable of operating so as to convert to the first fluid in the liquid state, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Olrik by configuring the countercurrent heat exchanger to cool the first fluid so as to convert the first fluid into the first fluid in the liquid state, in order to obtain a system which phase shifts the first fluid into the first fluid in the liquid state as desired by Olrik, and which advantageously recovers a large amount of heat from the first fluid into the liquid feed mixture.
And wherein the countercurrent heat exchanger 31 is further configured to cool the second fluid, thereby obtaining the second fluid in a liquid state, wherein the second fluid in the liquid state is transported to the pump 20 (abstract, Figures 2A, 3A, 4, 5, 6, Columns 8-11).
Olrik does not explicitly teach that the pump 20 is a pressure exchanger which exchanges pressures between the liquid feed mixture, the first fluid in the liquid state, and the second fluid in the liquid state. Furthermore, Olrik is silent to the pump being a first pressure exchanger and a second pressure exchanger, wherein the first pressure exchanger exchanges pressure between the first fluid in the liquid state and the liquid feed mixture, and the second pressure exchanger exchanges pressure between the second fluid in the liquid state and the liquid feed mixture.
However, Olrik does teach that “It is preferred that the water pump is adapted such that the energy used for pumping raw water into the heat exchanger and the separator is recovered as much as possible when the water is withdrawn again,” (Column 10 Lines 34-38). This teaching would at least suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that it would be desirable for the pump 20 act as a pressure exchanger. It is known in the art to use pumps which function as pressure exchangers for supplying water into and out of critical pressure distillation systems like that of Olrik. For example, Redenbaugh teaches a critical pressure distillation system (Column 1 Lines 10-20, Column 1 Line 50-Column 2 line 25, Column 4 Lines 38-52), the system comprising a pump (balanced pressure pump) 123 which acts as a pressure exchanger (Figures 9 and 11, Column 12 Line 50-Column 13 Line 5, Column 14 line 20-Column 15 Line 22; emphasis on Column 12 Line 73-Column 13 Line 5 and Column 14 Lines 44-51).
Furthermore, it is noted that the first outgoing liquid in Olrik is a distillate, and the second outgoing liquid is a residue (abstract, Figures 3A, 4, 5, 6, Columns 9-11; emphasis on Column 10 Line 29-Column 11 Line 1). It is known in the art to provide critical pressure distillation systems with two separate pumps which act as pressure exchangers, wherein a first exchanges pressure between a distillate and a liquid feed mixture, and a second exchanges pressure between a residue and a liquid feed mixture. For example, Redenbaugh teaches an embodiment (that of Figure 15) comprising a first pump (balanced pressure pump) 246 which operates a first pressure exchanger and a second pump (balanced pressure pump) 250 which operates as a second pressure exchanger; wherein the first pressure exchanger 246 pumps and exchanges pressure between a liquid feed mixture (salt water to be treated) and a first outgoing liquid, the first outgoing liquid being distillate (fresh water); and wherein the second pressure exchanger 250 pumps and exchanges pressure between the liquid feed mixture (salt water to be treated) and a second outgoing liquid, the second outgoing liquid being a residue (brine water) (Figure 15, Column 16 Lines 18-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Olrik in view of Redenbaugh by replacing the pump 20 in Olrik with a first pump which acts as a first pressure exchanger and a second pump which acts as a second pressure exchanger (e.g. like the pumps in Figure 15 of Olrik), wherein the first pressure exchanger exchanges pressure between the first fluid in the liquid state and the liquid feed mixture, and the second pressure exchanger exchanges pressure between the second fluid in the liquid state and the feed liquid, in order to obtain a system in which the first and second pumps (first and second pressure exchangers) recover energy used for pumping raw water into the heat exchanger when the water is withdrawn again, as is suggested in base Olrik.
Because the first and second pressure exchangers in modified Olrik function in place of the pump 20 of base (unmodified) Olrik, it is implicit that: i) the first pressure exchanger raises the fluid pressure of the liquid feed mixture from the first pressure to a pressure of the first pressure exchanger, the pressure of the first pressure exchanger being higher than the first pressure; and ii) the second pressure exchanger raises the fluid pressure of the liquid feed mixture from the first pressure to a pressure of the second pressure exchanger, the pressure of the second pressure exchanger being higher than the first pressure.
In the alternative, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would be necessary for the first and second pressure exchangers to function as such in order to effectively take the place of the pump 20 of base Olrik.
In the event that it is not implicit in modified Olrik, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Olrik by configuring the first pressure exchanger to raise the fluid pressure of the liquid feed mixture from the first pressure to a pressure of the first pressure exchanger, the pressure of the first pressure exchanger being higher than the first pressure, and by configuring the second pressure exchanger to raise the fluid pressure of the liquid feed mixture from the first pressure to a pressure of the second pressure exchanger, the pressure of the second pressure exchanger being higher than the first pressure, in order to ensure that said first and second pressure exchangers are able to effectively take the place of the pump 20 of base Olrik.
Modified Olrik is silent to a first pump and a second pump connected to the first pressure exchanger and the second pressure exchanger respectively.
However, in the art of supercritical distillation/liquid purification, it is well known to provide a booster pump for further elevating the pressure of a liquid feed mixture exiting a pressure exchanger and prior to said liquid feed mixture entering a countercurrent heat exchanger and subsequently a reactor/heater. For example, such booster pumps are present in the systems of Figures 4 and 5 in Lee (see paragraphs [0040]-[0055] for further details regarding said systems).
Because modified Olrik comprises two separate pressure exchangers, it would make sense to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Olrik with two separate booster pumps, i.e. one for each pressure exchanger, so as to boost the pressures of the portions of the liquid feed mixture leaving each pressure exchanger.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Olrik in view of Lee by adding a first pump (i.e. a first booster pump) and a second pump (i.e. second booster pump) connected to the first pressure exchanger downstream of the first pressure exchanger and the second pressure exchanger downstream of the second pressure exchanger respectively, in order to provide Olrik with a means of boosting (further increasing) the pressure of the portions of the liquid feed mixture leaving each pressure exchanger.
Modified Olrik does not explicitly teach a third pump configured to compensate for inefficiencies of the first pressure exchanger and the second pressure exchanger.
However, in the art of supercritical distillation/liquid purification, it is well known to provide a pump which can pressurize feed liquid and provide it to a heat exchanger independently of a pressure exchanger. For example, Lee teaches supercritical distillation/liquid purification system comprising a pressure exchanger 505, a heat exchanger 503, a reactor 201, and a pump 104, wherein the pump 104 is configured so as to be capable of pressurizing feed liquid to a pressure near the critical pressure of the feed liquid and supplying said feed liquid to the heat exchanger 503 independently of the pressure exchanger 505, i.e. by bypassing the pressure exchanger (Figures 4 and 5, paragraph [0040]).
Though it is not explicitly taught, it is understood that the pump 104 in Lee is capable of operating so as to compensate for inefficiencies of the pressure exchanger 505, i.e. by bypassing the pressure exchanger 505 so as to pressurize and supply feed liquid to the heat exchanger 503 independently of the pressure exchanger 505.
Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that it would be beneficial to include a pump like the pump 104 of Lee at least because such a pump can be used to pressurize and supply feed liquid during startup of a supercritical distillation/liquid purification system, at which point there would not yet be any outflowing pressurized liquid necessary for operation of a pressure exchanger.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Olrik in view of Lee by adding a third pump configured so as to be capable of pressurizing feed liquid to a pressure near the critical pressure of the feed liquid and supplying said feed liquid to the three-way countercurrent heat exchanger independently of the first and second pressure exchangers, i.e. by bypassing the first and second pressure exchangers, in order to obtain a system which comprises means (i.e. the third pump) capable of pressurizing and supplying feed liquid during startup of the system, at which point there would not yet be any outflowing pressurized liquid necessary for operation of the pressure exchangers.
The third pump of Lee modified in view of Olrik as described above is capable of operating so as to compensate for inefficiencies of the first and second pressure exchangers, i.e. by bypassing the first and second pressure exchangers so as to pressurize and supply feed liquid to the three-way countercurrent heat exchanger independently of the pressure exchangers. Accordingly, said third pump satisfies the claim language regarding the third pump being configured to compensate for inefficiencies of the first pressure exchanger and the second pressure exchanger (see MPEP 2114 for guidance).
With regard to claim 5: Modified Olrik is silent to the first feed line being divided into a second feed line and a third feed line which feed the first pressure exchanger and the second pressure exchanger respectively.
However, as discussed in the rejection of claim 4 above, in the system of modified Olrik, the first pressure exchanger exchanges pressure between the first outgoing liquid and the liquid feed mixture, and the second pressure exchanger exchanges pressure between the second outgoing liquid and the feed liquid. With this in mind, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would be necessary, or at least desirable, to divide the first feed line into a second feed line and a third feed line which feed the first pressure exchanger and the second pressure exchanger respectively, i.e. such that feed lines are made capable of supplying feed liquid to both the first and second pressure exchangers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Olrik by configuring the first feed line to be divided into a second feed line and a third feed line which feed the first pressure exchanger and the second pressure exchanger respectively, in order to obtain a system having feed lines which are capable of supplying feed liquid to both the first and second pressure exchangers.
With regard to claim 6: Modified Olrik does not explicitly teach the presence of respective output lines from the first and second pressure exchangers that combine into a single line feeding into the countercurrent heat exchanger.
However, as discussed in the rejection of claim 4 above, modified Olrik comprises a first pressure exchanger and a separate second pressure exchanger, wherein the first pressure exchanger exchanges pressure between the first outgoing liquid and the liquid feed mixture, and the second pressure exchanger exchanges pressure between the second outgoing liquid and the feed liquid. Furthermore, modified Olrik comprises a countercurrent heat exchanger 31 configured to receive the liquid feed mixture and to transport the liquid feed mixture to the heater 32 (Olrik: abstract, Figures 3A, 4, 5, 6, Columns 9-11), wherein said countercurrent heat exchanger 31 comprises a single flow path for the liquid feed mixture, i.e. that formed by baffles (e.g. baffle 311) and terminating in inlet 312 (Olrik: abstract, Figures 3A, 4, 5, 6, Columns 9-11; emphasis on Figures 3A and 6, Column 9 Line 60-Column 10 Line 6, and column 10 Lines 22-30).
With the forgoing in mind, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would be necessary, or at least desirable, to provide the system of modified Olrik with respective output lines from the first and second pressure exchangers that combine into a single line feeding into the countercurrent heat exchanger, i.e. such that the system is capable of supplying feed liquid from both the first and second pressure exchangers into the single flow path for feed liquid within the heat exchanger.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Olrik by providing the system of Olrik with respective output lines from the first and second pressure exchangers that combine into a single line feeding into the countercurrent heat exchanger, in order to obtain a system capable of supplying feed liquid from both the first and second pressure exchangers into the single flow path for feed liquid within the heat exchanger.
With regard to claim 7: In modified Olrik, the first fluid is taken from a top portion of the heater/reactor 32, i.e. via first path 326, and the second fluid is taken from a bottom portion of the heater/reactor, i.e. via second path 237 (Olrik: abstract, Figures 2A, 3A, 3B, 3C, 4, 5, 6, Columns 8-11).
With regard to claim 8: In modified Olrik, the heater/reactor 32 is at least capable of hosting (i.e. containing) heat exchanging processes which decrease temperature differences therein when separating the first fluid and the second fluid. For example, when operating to separate the first and second fluid, the heater/reactor 32 of modified Olrik, as illustrated in Figure 3A of Olrik, is at least capable of hosting:
i) convection processes which exchange heat between the heat source 60 and the fluids within the heater/reactor 32, wherein said convection processes reduce temperature differences between the heat source 60 and the fluids within the heater/reactor 32, as well as temperature differences between the wall(s) of the heater/reactor 32 and the fluids therein;
ii) convection processes between the fluids within the heater/reactor 32 and the fluids flowing inside the first path 326 and the second path 327, wherein said convection processes reduce temperature differences between the fluids within the heater/reactor 32 and the fluids within the first and second paths 326 and 327; and
iii) convection currents within the heater/reactor 32, said convection currents arising from the heating of the heater/reactor 32 by heat source 60, wherein said convection currents reduce temperature differences between the fluids in different portions of the heater/reactor 32 by causing said fluids to mix.
Because the heater/reactor 32 of modified Olrik is at least capable of hosting such heat exchange processes, modified Olrik satisfies the claim language regarding “the heater contain[ing] heat exchanging processes to decrease temperature differences therein when separating the first fluid and the second fluid.” See MPEP 2114 for guidance.
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 JONATHAN "LUKE" PILCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-2691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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 5712725954. 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.
/JONATHAN LUKE PILCHER/Examiner, Art Unit 1772