DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 14 and 15, which are dependent upon claim 1, the use of the term “any of the subsea templates” is used. Other templates described in claim 1 include “a subsea desalination template” and “a template with a booster module zone”. While only one template has the designation “subsea”, Examiner will interpret the claim as referring to either of these two templates as both are intended for use in subsea conditions and so “subsea” is inherent.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 11, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, “the at least one retrievable subsea RO-module” twice in lines 6-7 and line 21 of the claim should read “the at least one individually retrievable subsea RO-module”.
In Claim 4, “the at least one retrievable subsea booster module” in line 3 of the claim should read “the at least one individually retrievable subsea booster module”.
In Claim 11, “the at least one retrievable subsea booster module” in lines 3-4 of the claim should read “the at least one individually retrievable subsea booster module”.
In Claim 18, “configured to be place onto and removed” in line 11 of the claim should read “configured to be placed onto and removed”.
In Claim 18, “the a booster module template” in lines 23-24 of the claim should read “the booster module template”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 and 13-16 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 RO-cartridge assembly" in line 14 of the claim. Claim 1 describes “at least one RO-cartridge assembly” which refers to one or more RO-cartridge assemblies and the reference to a single RO-cartridge assembly is unclear.
Claims 2-11 and 13-16 are rejected because of their dependence upon claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the at least one retrievable subsea booster pump" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the at least one desalinated water transport pump " in lines 4-5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 depends upon claim 6, which depends upon claim 1. The limitation “at least one desalinated water transport pump” is introduced in claim 3, but is not related to claim 8.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the at least one retrievable subsea booster pump assembly" in lines 2-3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 describes “at least one seawater booster pump assembly” and “at least one individually retrievable subsea booster module” which are the closest potential references, but neither exactly matches and so it is unclear whether a new assembly is being introduced or one of the aforementioned limitations is being referenced.
Claim 11 is rejected because of its dependence upon claim 10.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the at least one retrievable subsea desalination water transport module" in lines 2-3 and lines 5-6 of the claim. Claim 5 describes “a retrievable subsea desalinated water transport module” which refers to one retrievable subsea desalinated water transport module which makes the reference unclear.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "a permanent seabed foundation secured to seabed anchoring, and…" in lines 1-2 of the claim. The clause is missing a noun that completes the thought, as it is unknown to what the permanent seabed foundation is secured to and what the adjectives “seabed anchoring” are modifying.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the desalinated water pipeline" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 describes “at least one desalinated water line” which refers to one or more desalinated water lines.
Claim 16 is rejected because of its dependence upon claim 15.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9, 13, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ton That (US Patent No. 20080290032 A1) hereinafter Ton That, in view of Zeren et al (US Patent No. 20140339169 A1) hereinafter Zeren, in view of Babbitt et al (US Patent No. 20150104328 A1) hereinafter Babbitt.
Regarding Claim 1, Ton That teaches a submersible desalination unit (i.e., a shallow water desalination system; Abstract) with a removably attached frame (i.e., a subsea desalination template; Fig. 1, #10; Paragraph 0042) anchored on the ocean floor via three vessel anchor lines (Fig. 2, #50) and concrete blocks (i.e., configured to be located on a seabed; Fig. 2, #52) that contains a high pressure pump (Fig. 1, #26) and booster pump (Fig. 1, #42) which feed prefiltered water to reverse osmosis membranes to above 800 PSI (i.e., at least one Reverse Osmosis (RO) module zone; the at least one seawater booster pump assembly being configured to boost a seawater pressure from a hydrostatic pressure to a pressure exceeding an osmotic pressure sufficient for the at least one RO-cartridge assembly; Fig. 1, #32; Paragraph 0045) and a permeate pipeline (i.e., at least one RO-module connection and desalination template piping in fluid connection with the at least one RO- module connection; Fig. 1, #12) which carries permeate to the shore by throttling the permeate pressure in order to obtain the necessary pressure to overcome the ambient hydrostatic head and the friction loss of the permeate pipeline (i.e., at least one desalinated water line adapted to convey desalinated water from the at least one retrievable subsea RO-module to a location above a sea level; to provide sufficient backpressure for the RO-cartridge assembly; Paragraph 0051). Ton That further teaches that the desalination unit is equipped with means for bringing it to the surface for maintenance (Paragraph 0072) and that the reverse osmosis membrane is a commercially available Dow FilmtecTM SW30XLE-400i membrane (Paragraph 0045).
Ton That does not explicitly teach that at least one individually retrievable subsea RO-module adapted to be placed in the at least one RO-module zone of the subsea desalination template, the at least one retrievable subsea RO-module including a RO-template connection adapted to be connected to the at least one RO-module connection, and at least one RO-cartridge assembly in fluid connection with the RO-template connection.
However, Zeren teaches reverse osmosis membrane stations (Fig. 1, #1) that contains a plurality of membrane devices (i.e., at least one individually retrievable subsea RO-module adapted to be placed in the at least one RO-module zone; Fig. 1, #5) and can be maneuvered or pulled up in whole or in parts for cleaning or other maintenance purposes and, alternatively, each membrane cylinder (i.e., at least one RO-cartridge assembly; Fig. 1, #5) may be cleaned in situ via a remote operated vehicle with the help of quick connect/disconnect elements (Fig. 4, #9; Paragraph 0055). Zeren further teaches that the membrane devices may be off the shelf and organized in an optimizable pattern (Paragraph 0031) for the purpose of making desalination systems more affordable to get started and to sustain (Paragraph 0028).
Zeren is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a reverse osmosis sub-sea desalination system (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reverse osmosis membranes taught by Ton That with the modular reverse osmosis membrane stations taught by Zeren because the reverse osmosis membrane stations would reduce starting and operating costs for the desalination system.
Ton That in view of Zeren does not teach at least one seawater booster pump assembly with an inlet and an outlet adapted to be in fluid connection with a seawater inlet side of the at least one RO-cartridge assembly; at least one retrievable subsea booster module including at the at least one seawater booster pump assembly; at least one booster module template connection on the at least one retrievable subsea booster module, adapted to be connected to a booster module connection on a template with a booster module zone.
However, Babbitt teaches a subsea pumping apparatus (i.e., a booster module zone) designed to pass sea water through a reverse osmosis membrane (i.e., at least one RO-cartridge assembly) as part of a desalination system (i.e., a subsea desalination booster module for a desalination system comprising at least one seawater booster pump assembly with an inlet and an outlet adapted to be in fluid connection with a seawater inlet side of at least one RO-cartridge assembly; Paragraphs 0009 and 0015) with subsea pumping modules (i.e., a subsea desalination booster module) that are removable and replaceable with a subsea pumping assembly via a remotely operated underwater vehicle and lists examples of components such as pumps, motors, and more that are configured to be modular, replaceable, reconfigurable, interchangeable, and/or hot-swappable (i.e., at least one booster module template connection on the at least one retrievable subsea booster module, adapted to be connected to a booster module connection on a template with a booster module zone; Paragraph 0103). Babbitt also teaches one or more valves (Figs. 3A and 3B) configured to regulate pressure of a pump outlet (i.e., in fluid connection with a retentate side of the least one retrievable subsea RO-module) to reduce load on a pump or motor (i.e., a pressure regulator; Paragraph 0078).
Babbitt is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to subsea pumping apparatuses and methods (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pumps taught by Ton That in view of Zeren with the subsea pumping apparatus taught by Babbitt because the subsea pumping apparatus would be fixable while underwater via a remotely operated underwater vehicle.
Regarding Claim 2, Ton That in view of Zeren in view of Babbitt makes obvious the shallow water desalination system of claim 1. Ton That further teaches that the booster pump (Fig. 1, #42) is located inside the removably attached frame (i.e., the template with a booster module zone is the desalination template; Fig. 1, #10; Paragraphs 0042-0045).
Regarding Claim 3, Ton That in view of Zeren in view of Babbitt makes obvious the shallow water desalination system of claim 1. Zeren further teaches a pump (i.e., at least one desalinated water transport pump assembly; Fig. 1, #2) which initiates and enables a steady flow of permeate (i.e., desalinated water) removal from the reverse osmosis desalination system (i.e., in fluid connection with a desalinated water side of the at least one RO-cartridge assembly in the retrievable subsea RO-module; Fig. 1, #1; Paragraph 0056).
Regarding Claim 4, Ton That in view of Zeren in view of Babbitt makes obvious the shallow water desalination system of claim 3. Babbitt further teaches that a subsea apparatus can comprise a subsea pump configured to pass water through a reverse osmosis membrane to produce hydraulic fluid (Paragraph 0009) and that the hydraulic fluid is routed via the outlet of a pump to a fluid reservoir or to a subsea environment (i.e., the at least one seawater booster pump assembly and the at least one desalinated water transport pump assembly are located in the booster module; Paragraphs 0010-0011).
Regarding Claim 5, Ton That in view of Zeren in view of Babbitt makes obvious the shallow water desalination system of claim 3. Adding upon the above teachings of components such as pumps, motors, and more that are configured to be modular, replaceable, reconfigurable, interchangeable, and/or hot-swappable (Paragraph 0103), Babbitt further teaches the subsea pumping apparatus contains a desalination system configured to produce a hydraulic fluid which is routed through a pump to storage or another use (i.e., wherein the at least one desalinated water transport pump assembly is located in a retrievable subsea desalinated water transport module and wherein the retrievable transport module is adapted to be located in a desalinated water transport module; Abstract).
Regarding Claim 6, Ton That in view of Zeren in view of Babbitt makes obvious the shallow water desalination system of claim 1. Ton That further teaches the use of a pressure exchanger energy recovery exchanger (i.e., an energy recovery assembly; Fig. 1, #38) that uses the residual energy of the rejected brine from the reverse osmosis membrane (Fig. 1, #32) which has a brine exit low pressure pipe (Fig. 1, #44) which sends the brine to the sea current power converter (Fig. 1, #48) for enhanced mixing with seawater (i.e., the pressure regulator includes an energy recovery assembly; Paragraphs 0052-0055).
Regarding Claim 9, Ton That in view of Zeren in view of Babbitt makes obvious the shallow water desalination system of claim 1. Babbitt further teaches controllers, processors, electric components and/or similar structures (i.e., a least one retrievable control module) may be disposed in sealed chambers such as a controller housing (i.e., located in at least one control module zone; Fig. 1, #168) and that they may be disposed subsea on or off the pumping apparatus (i.e., on the desalination template; Paragraph 0104).
Regarding Claim 13, Ton That in view of Zeren in view of Babbitt makes obvious the shallow water desalination system of claim 5. Zeren previously teaches a separate pump located downstream of a reverse osmosis assembly which pumps permeate from the reverse osmosis assembly to the surface (i.e., at least one separate pump template is located on a downstream side of the at least one subsea desalination template and includes a desalinated water inlet and a desalinated water outlet whereby the separate pump template is adapted to convey the desalinated water from the desalination template; See Claim 3 rejection). Additionally, Babbitt previously teaches modular pump construction, which includes pumps on both the seawater and produced water sides of a desalination unit (i.e., the separate pump template with the at least one transport module; See Claim 5 rejection).
Regarding Claim 15, Ton That in view of Zeren in view of Babbitt makes obvious the shallow water desalination system of claim 1. Ton That further teaches a main cradle (i.e., a further base template; Fig. 2, #54) which contains the main body or frame (i.e., any of the subsea templates adapted to be located on a further base template; Fig. 2, #10) a connection ring to host and guide the main flexible pipeline (i.e., the desalinated water pipeline; Fig. 2, #62) and supports the sea power converter (Fig. 2, #48) which mixes the rejected brine with seawater for discharge (i.e., a concentrated seawater outlet; Paragraphs 57-61).
Regarding Claim 18, Ton That teaches a submersible desalination unit (i.e., a shallow water desalination system; Abstract) with a removably attached frame (i.e., a subsea desalination template; Fig. 1, #10; Paragraph 0042) anchored on the ocean floor via three vessel anchor lines (Fig. 2, #50) and concrete blocks (i.e., configured to be located on a seabed; Fig. 2, #52) that contains a high pressure pump (Fig. 1, #26) and booster pump (Fig. 1, #42) which feed prefiltered water to reverse osmosis membranes to above 800 PSI (i.e., at least one Reverse Osmosis (RO) module zone; the at least one seawater booster pump assembly being configured to boost a seawater pressure from a hydrostatic pressure to a pressure exceeding an osmotic pressure sufficient for the at least one RO-cartridge assembly; Fig. 1, #32; Paragraph 0045) and a permeate pipeline (i.e., at least one RO-module connection and desalination template piping in fluid connection with the at least one RO- module connection; Fig. 1, #12) which carries permeate to the shore by throttling the permeate pressure in order to obtain the necessary pressure to overcome the ambient hydrostatic head and the friction loss of the permeate pipeline (i.e., at least one desalinated water line adapted to convey desalinated water from the at least one retrievable subsea RO-module to a location above a sea level; to provide sufficient backpressure for the RO-cartridge assembly; Paragraph 0051). Ton That further teaches that the desalination unit is equipped with means for bringing it to the surface for maintenance (Paragraph 0072) and that the reverse osmosis membrane is a commercially available Dow FilmtecTM SW30XLE-400i membrane (Paragraph 0045).
Ton That does not explicitly teach that at least one retrievable subsea RO-module configured to be placed onto and removed from the at least one RO-module zone of the subsea desalination template, the at least one retrievable subsea RO-module including a RO-template connection configured to be connected to the at least one RO-module connection, and at least one RO-cartridge assembly in fluid connection with the RO-template connection.
However, Zeren teaches reverse osmosis membrane stations (Fig. 1, #1) that contains a plurality of membrane devices (i.e., at least one retrievable subsea RO-module configured to be placed onto and removed from the at least one RO-module zone; Fig. 1, #5) and can be maneuvered or pulled up in whole or in parts for cleaning or other maintenance purposes and, alternatively, each membrane cylinder (i.e., at least one RO-cartridge assembly; Fig. 1, #5) may be cleaned in situ via a remote operated vehicle with the help of quick connect/disconnect elements (Fig. 4, #9; Paragraph 0055). Zeren further teaches that the membrane devices may be off the shelf and organized in an optimizable pattern (Paragraph 0031) for the purpose of making desalination systems more affordable to get started and to sustain (Paragraph 0028).
Zeren is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a reverse osmosis sub-sea desalination system (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reverse osmosis membranes taught by Ton That with the modular reverse osmosis membrane stations taught by Zeren because the reverse osmosis membrane stations would reduce starting and operating costs for the desalination system.
Ton That in view of Zeren does not teach at least one seawater booster pump assembly with an inlet and an outlet adapted to be in fluid connection with a seawater inlet side of the at least one RO-cartridge assembly; at least one retrievable subsea booster module including at the at least one seawater booster pump assembly; at least one booster module template connection on the at least one retrievable subsea booster module, adapted to be connected to a booster module connection on a template with a booster module zone.
However, Babbitt teaches a subsea pumping apparatus (i.e., a booster module zone) designed to pass sea water through a reverse osmosis membrane (i.e., at least one RO-cartridge assembly) as part of a desalination system (i.e., a subsea desalination booster module for a desalination system comprising at least one seawater booster pump assembly with an inlet and an outlet adapted to be in fluid connection with a seawater inlet side of at least one RO-cartridge assembly; Paragraphs 0009 and 0015) with subsea pumping modules (i.e., a subsea desalination booster module) that are removable and replaceable with a subsea pumping assembly via a remotely operated underwater vehicle and lists examples of components such as pumps, motors, and more that are configured to be modular, replaceable, reconfigurable, interchangeable, and/or hot-swappable (i.e., at least one booster module template connection on the at least one retrievable subsea booster module, adapted to be connected to a booster module connection on a template with a booster module zone; Paragraph 0103). Babbitt also teaches one or more valves (Figs. 3A and 3B) configured to regulate pressure of a pump outlet (i.e., in fluid connection with a retentate side of the least one retrievable subsea RO-module) to reduce load on a pump or motor (i.e., a pressure regulator; Paragraph 0078).
Babbitt is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to subsea pumping apparatuses and methods (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pumps taught by Ton That in view of Zeren with the subsea pumping apparatus taught by Babbitt because the subsea pumping apparatus would be fixable while underwater via a remotely operated underwater vehicle.
Claims 7-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ton That in view of Zeren in view of Babbitt as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Katz (US Patent No. 20170349455 A1) hereinafter Katz.
Regarding Claim 7, Ton That in view of Zeren in view of Babbitt makes obvious the shallow water desalination system of claim 6. Ton That in view of Zeren in view of Babbitt does not teach that the energy recovery assembly is located in a separate retrievable energy recovery module.
However, Katz teaches that energy recovery devices (ERD) can be engineered to be in stand-alone containers where the feed water and pressurized water is piped into the containers (i.e., the energy recovery assembly is located in a separate retrievable energy recovery module; Paragraph 0093). Katz further teaches that the advantage of modular containers is that malfunctioning or underperforming equipment can be quickly removed and valves and piping can automatically reroute water away from such failing or underperforming equipment (Paragraph 0078).
Katz is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to offshore desalination (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pressure exchanger energy recovery exchanger taught by Ton That in view of Zeren in view of Babbitt to be modular in its own container as taught by Katz because the container would be quickly removable when the device is malfunctioning.
Regarding Claim 8, Ton That in view of Zeren in view of Babbitt makes obvious the shallow water desalination system of claim 6. Ton That further teaches connecting the pressure exchanger booster pump (Fig. 1, #42) to the drive shaft (Fig. 1, #46) of a driving motor to utilize renewable energy (Paragraph 0050) and also teaches the use of a pressure exchanger energy recovery exchanger (Fig. 1, #38) which is fed by the reverse osmosis brine exit high pressure pipe (Fig. 1, #36) to connect a high pressure line (Fig. 1, #40) to feed the pressure exchanger booster pump (Paragraphs 0045-0053).
Ton That in view of Zeren in view of Babbitt does not explicitly teach wherein the energy recovery assembly includes a turbine aggregate with a turbine and one of an electric generator and a mechanical connection through a transmission to the booster pump or the transport pump.
However, Katz teaches the use of energy recovery devices such as the Francis Turbine and the Pelton Wheel as shaft assisting mechanisms to feed recovered energy directly to a high pressure pump (i.e., the energy recovery assembly includes a turbine aggregate with a turbine and one of an electric generator and a mechanical connection through a transmission to the booster pump or the transport pump; Paragraph 0089) for the purpose of reducing energy consumption of the desalination facility (Paragraph 0088).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pressure exchanger energy recovery exchanger taught by Ton That in view of Zeren in view of Babbitt to be a turbine as taught by Katz because the turbine would reduce energy consumption of the desalination facility.
Regarding Claim 10, Ton That in view of Zeren in view of Babbitt makes obvious the shallow water desalination system of claim 1. Ton That further teaches a pre-filtration membrane housing (i.e., a prefilter assembly; Fig. 1, #22) with a set of pre-filtration hollow fiber membranes (Fig. 1, #20; Paragraph 0043) prior to feeding the reverse osmosis membrane (i.e., upstream of the booster pump assembly; Paragraphs 0045-0047) for the purpose of removing larger contaminants and debris (Abstract).
Ton That in view of Zeren in view of Babbitt does not teach a retrievable prefilter module.
However, Katz teaches that modular filters can be located in containers and placed adjacent to the membrane containers (Paragraph 0077). Katz further teaches that the advantage of modular containers is that malfunctioning or underperforming equipment can be quickly removed and valves and piping can automatically reroute water away from such failing or underperforming equipment (Paragraph 0078).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pre-filters taught by Ton That in view of Zeren in view of Babbitt to be modular in its own container as taught by Katz because the container would be quickly removable when the device is malfunctioning.
Regarding Claim 11, Ton That in view of Zeren in view of Babbitt in view of Katz makes obvious the shallow water desalination system of claim 10. Babbitt further teaches multiple filters (Fig. 1, #146) disposed prior to desalination by reverse osmosis and located in the booster pump module (i.e., the retrievable filter module includes a filter and is located on a separate filtering and pumping station and wherein the booster module is located on the filtering and pumping station upstream and in fluid connection with the desalination template; Fig. 6; Paragraph 0099).
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ton That in view of Zeren in view of Babbitt as applied to claims 1 and 15, respectively, above, and further in view of Lim et al (US Patent No. 20160068412 A1) hereinafter Lim.
Regarding Claim 14, Ton That in view of Zeren in view of Babbitt makes obvious the shallow water desalination system of claim 1. Ton That further teaches that the vessel is anchored to the sea floor via three vessel anchor lines (Fig. 2, #50) and concrete blocks (i.e., secured to seabed anchoring elements; Fig. 2, #52; Paragraph 0057) and that the vessel includes the main body or frame (i.e., any of the subsea templates; Fig. 2, #10; Paragraph 0058).
Ton That in view of Zeren in view of Babbitt does not teach a permanent seabed foundation.
However, Lim teaches that concrete (i.e., a permanent seabed foundation; Fig. 2, #102) is first installed on the sea floor, upon which the rest of the pre-treatment unit (Fig. 2, #100) is installed and that the concrete remains on the sea floor when the rest of the unit needs repairs and is pulled up to the surface (Paragraph 0048). The purpose of the concrete is to enable the pre-treatment unit to not be moved by the ocean currents (Paragraph 0049).
Lim is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to an apparatus for removing salt from seawater located at a predetermined depth on the sea floor (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the anchoring lines and concrete blocks taught by Ton That in view of Zeren in view of Babbitt with the concrete taught by Lim because the concrete taught by Lim would prevent the desalination structure from being moved by ocean currents.
Regarding Claim 16, Ton That in view of Zeren in view of Babbitt makes obvious the shallow water desalination system of claim 15. Ton That further teaches a main cradle (i.e., a further base template; Fig. 2, #54) which contains the main body or frame (i.e., any of the subsea templates adapted to be located on a further base template; Fig. 2, #10)
Ton That in view of Zeren in view of Babbitt does not teach a permanent seabed foundation.
However, Lim teaches that concrete (i.e., a permanent seabed foundation; Fig. 2, #102) is first installed on the sea floor, upon which the rest of the pre-treatment unit (Fig. 2, #100) is installed and that the concrete remains on the sea floor when the rest of the unit needs repairs and is pulled up to the surface (Paragraph 0048). The purpose of the concrete is to enable the pre-treatment unit to not be moved by the ocean currents (Paragraph 0049).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the anchoring lines and concrete blocks taught by Ton That in view of Zeren in view of Babbitt with the concrete taught by Lim because the concrete taught by Lim would prevent the desalination structure from being moved by ocean currents.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 03/27/2025 has been entered.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the amendment of claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-11, and 13-16, the cancellation of claims 12 and 17, and the addition of new claim 18 have been acknowledged.
In view of the amendment to the specification, the objections to the specification have been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claims 1-2, 5, 8-9, 11, 13, and 16 and the cancellation of claim 12, the claim objections have been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claims 4, 11, and 13 and the cancellation of claims 12 and 17, the rejections of claims 4, 11, and some of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn. See the above section for new 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections and previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections that were not fixed.
In view of the cancellation of claim 17, the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 03/27/2025 have been fully considered.
The prior art for rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ton That (US Patent No. 20080290032 A1) hereinafter Ton That, in view of Zeren et al (US Patent No. 20140339169 A1) hereinafter Zeren, in view of Babbitt et al (US Patent No. 20150104328 A1) hereinafter Babbitt are included here for purpose of being easier to reference.
Applicant requests clarity for the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of Claim 16 based upon its dependence upon claim 15 (Arguments filed 03/27/2025, section “Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §112(b)”). Dependent claims contain all limitations of the claims upon which they depend. An example is that claim 2 (which depends upon claim 1) could be written such that claim 1 is wholly copied into the claim, and then the additional limitations of claim 2 are appended to the bottom of claim 2. Therefore, any claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) tends to propagate an identical rejection down to claims that depend upon the originally rejected claim. Fixing the root cause of the claim rejection should fix the dependent claims as well, assuming no new grounds of rejection has been added due to amendment.
Applicant argues, regarding Ton That and claim 1, that the anchor lines, concrete blocks, and frame taught by Ton That do not satisfy the limitation “configured to be located on the seabed” of the instant application because the frame is a floating structure, suspended in the water by the anchor lines attached to the concrete blocks and only the concrete blocks are located on the seabed (Arguments Filed 03/27/2025, Page 2 to Page 3, Paragraph 1).
Applicant argues, regarding the combination of Ton That and Zeren and claim 1, that because Zeren teaches exposed reverse osmosis membranes and Ton That requires pressurized membrane filters, that the ability to individually replace the membrane modules as taught by Zeren would not apply to Ton That and one of ordinary skill in the art would not know to apply the teachings of Zeren to Ton That (Arguments Filed 03/27/2025, Page 3, Paragraph 1 to Page 5, Paragraph 2).
Applicant argues that the dependent claims are allowable because claim 1 is allowable (Arguments Filed 03/27/2025, Page 5 to Page 6).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments against Ton That, the desalination device is clearly indicated to be located on the sea floor. The concrete blocks form a foundation of sorts, and the anchor lines form a short tether with which the desalination device is maintained near the sea floor. Ton That describes in claim 1 that there is a means for guiding the unit to the cradle for sea floor positioning, acknowledging that the device is “located on the sea floor”. Any frame or foundation located directly on the sea floor would inherently create a desalination system that is suspended above the sea floor to some degree.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments against the combination of Ton That and Zeren, Applicant is off-base in assuming that the reverse osmosis membranes taught by Zeren do not require high pressure. The reason Zeren utilizes open membrane modules is because the location of Zeren’s invention is at a deep-sea floor which already supplies the high pressure required to operate the reverse osmosis membranes due to the depth. Reverse osmosis cannot function without high pressure. Zeren describes an apparatus that utilizes off the shelf reverse osmosis membrane cartridges, and Ton That teaches the use of a commercially available reverse osmosis membrane cartridge. Ton That teaches that a plurality of reverse osmosis membranes are installed in the pressure vessels (Fig. 1, #34; Paragraph 0046). Additionally, modular reverse membrane modules and parallel construction with appropriate valving is well known in the art of reverse osmosis as demonstrated by Beall (US Patent Application No. 20180015416 A1) teaching parallel process for reverse osmosis water filtration systems (Abstract), Dehlsen (US Patent Application No. 20190091629 A1) teaching a reverse osmosis water production apparatus capable of moving modules into a passage for individual replacement (Paragraphs 0013-0041), Foix et al (US Patent Application No. 20170259196 A1) teaching a modular filtration platform such that filter cartridges are connected to establish a water flow in parallel and easily configured to accommodate different filtration schemes (Paragraphs 0008), Dong et al (US Patent Application No. 20170028319 A1) teaching a parallel flow channel filter cartridge (Abstract), and Oh et al (US Patent Application No. 20160289110 A1) teaching a cassette type modular water treatment package (Abstract) among others. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that they could use scheme taught by Zeren to apply to the individual off the shelf cartridges taught by Ton That in a manner that would be replaceable one at a time by means of a remotely operated vehicle in subsea applications because the state of the art at the time is such that modular construction is well known.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments for dependent claims, claim 1 is not allowable and so claims 2-11 and 13-16 are not allowable.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. All other arguments have been indirectly addressed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ADRIEN GERMAIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vickie Kim can be reached on (571)272-0579. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.A.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/Ryan B Huang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777