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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the salinity” in line 2 should be --a salinity--;
“one side the membrane” in line 7 should be --one side of the membrane--.
Claim 21 is objected to because “in provided” in line 2 should be --is provided--.
Claim 22 is objected to because “the electrolyte” in line 2 should be --an electrolyte--.
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the pressure of the high salinity stream” in line 2 should be --a pressure of the high salinity stream--;
“the pressure of the output stream” in line 3 should be --a pressure of the output stream--.
Claim 25 is objected to because “the first and second parts of the output stream” in lines 1-2 should be --the first part of the output stream and the second part of the output stream--.
Claim 27 is objected to because “to claim 18 wherein” in line 1 should be --to claim 18, wherein-- (a comma needs to be added between 18 and wherein).
Claim 28 is objected to because “to claim 18 wherein” in line 1 should be --to claim 18, wherein-- (a comma needs to be added between 18 and wherein).
Claim 29 is objected to because “the salinity” in line 2 should be --a salinity--.
Claim 34 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the salinity” in line 3 should be --a salinity--;
“one side the membrane” in line 8 should be --one side of the membrane--;
“streaming” in line 11 should be --stream--;
“accordance with any of claims 12 to 16” in lines 11-12 should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 18-20, 27, 29-31, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nissen (U.S. 2019/0093639).
Re claim 18:
Nissen discloses a brine saturation process (Figure 1) comprising:
increasing the salinity of an unsaturated saline stream (10, aqueous exit stream - Para 48 (element 10 must be an unsaturated saline stream per description in Para 48 as element 10 is described as “stream 9 minus the water that has flowed via the semi-permeable membrane”, element 9 is described as “lower salinity stream”, and that element 10 is “injected into the salt formation 1 where it dissolves the salt contained therein”)) by passage through a brine saturator (1, salt formation - Para 48 (a type of brine saturator per description in Para 48 and Para 32)) in which salt (see Fig. 1 at 1, Para 48, and Para 29 - “…salt from a salt formation…”) is dissolved into the unsaturated saline stream (10) to produce a high salinity stream (4, resulting stream - Para 48 (a type of high salinity stream as described in Paras 29 and 48))(see Figs. 1, Paras 29, 32, and 48);
converting latent osmotic energy present in said high salinity stream into power (see Paras 34 and 48) by passage through an osmotic power unit (6, osmotic power unit - Para 48) comprising a membrane (Para 48 - “…semi-permeable membrane…”) in which said high salinity stream (4) is passed over one side the membrane (Para 48 - “…stream 4 is passed to osmotic power unit 6 where it is caused to flow at one side of a semi -permeable membrane…”), a low salinity stream (9, lower salinity stream - Para 48) being passed over a second side of said membrane (Para 48 - “…stream 9 is passed to osmotic power unit 6 where is it caused to flow at the other side of the semi - permeable membrane…”)(see Fig. 1, Paras 34 and 48);
using an output stream (11, exit stream - Para 48) derived from the high salinity stream (4) following passage through the osmotic power unit (6)(Para 48 - “…exit stream 11 derived from the saline stream (i.e. stream 4 plus the water than has flowed via the semi-permeable membrane)...”) as the unsaturated saline stream (10)(see Fig. 1 and Para 48 - “…part or all of aqueous exit stream 11 may be combined with aqueous exit stream 10 for insertion into the salt formation…”).
Re claim 19:
Nissen discloses the process (Figure 1) according to claim 18 (as described above), wherein the latent osmotic energy is converted into electricity by passage through the osmotic power unit (6)(see Fig. 1, Paras 34 and 48).
Re claim 20:
Nissen discloses the process (Figure 1) according to claim 18 (as described above), wherein the process (Figure 1) comprises passing a first part of said high salinity stream (4) to the osmotic power unit (6)(see Fig. 1) and outputting a second part (11, aqueous exit stream - Para 48) of said high salinity stream (4)(see Fig. 1 and Para 48 - “…an aqueous exit stream 11 derived from the saline stream (i.e. stream 4 plus the water than has flowed via the semi-permeable membrane…”).
Re claim 27:
Nissen discloses the process (Figure 1) according to claim 18 (as described above), wherein the membrane (Para 48 - “…semi-permeable membrane…”) of the osmotic power unit (6) comprises a semi-permeable membrane (Para 48 - “…semi-permeable membrane…”) which permits passage of water but not passage of salts (Para 48), and wherein said high salinity stream (4) is passed over one side of the semi-permeable membrane (Para 48 - “…stream 4 is passed to osmotic power unit 6 where it is caused to flow at one side of a semi -permeable membrane…”), the low salinity stream (9) being passed over a second side of said semi-permeable membrane (Para 48 - “…stream 9 is passed to osmotic power unit 6 where is it caused to flow at the other side of the semi - permeable membrane…”).
Re claim 29:
Nissen discloses a brine saturation system (Figure 1), comprising:
a brine saturator (1, salt formation - Para 48 (a type of brine saturator per description in Para 48 and Para 32)) configured to increase the salinity of an unsaturated saline stream (10, aqueous exit stream - Para 48 (element 10 must be an unsaturated saline stream per description in Para 48 as element 10 is described as “stream 9 minus the water that has flowed via the semi-permeable membrane”, element 9 is described as “lower salinity stream”, and that element 10 is “injected into the salt formation 1 where it dissolves the salt contained therein”)) to produce a high salinity stream (4, resulting stream - Para 48 (a type of high salinity stream as described in Paras 29 and 48))(see Figs. 1, Paras 29, 32, and 48); and
an osmotic power unit (6, osmotic power unit - Para 48) configured to generate power (see Paras 34 and 48) using a difference in salinity between a low salinity stream (9, lower salinity stream - Para 48) and the high salinity stream (4)(see Fig. 1, Paras 34 and 48); and
wherein the system (Figure 1) is arranged such that an output stream (11, exit stream - Para 48) from the osmotic power unit (6) is passed to the brine saturator (1) for use as the unsaturated saline stream (10)(see Fig. 1 and Para 48 - “…part or all of aqueous exit stream 11 may be combined with aqueous exit stream 10 for insertion into the salt formation…”), said output stream (11) being derived from the high salinity stream (4) following passage through the osmotic power unit (6)(Para 48 - “…exit stream 11 derived from the saline stream (i.e. stream 4 plus the water than has flowed via the semi-permeable membrane)...”).
Re claim 30:
Nissen discloses the brine saturation system (Figure 1) according to claim 29 (as described above), wherein the osmotic power unit (6) is configured to generate electricity using the difference in salinity between the low salinity stream (9) and the high salinity stream (4)(see Figure 1 and Para 48).
Re claim 31:
Nissen discloses the brine saturation system (Figure 1) according to claim 30 (as described above), wherein the osmotic power unit (6) is arranged to generate electricity (see Fig. 1 and Para 48) through Pressure Retarded Osmosis (PRO)(see Paras 3, 14 and Claim 13).
Re claim 33:
Nissen discloses the brine saturation system (Figure 1) according to claim 29 (as described above), wherein the brine saturator (1) is configured to produce the high salinity stream (4) being a saturated saline stream (Para 31).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 28 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nissen (U.S. 2019/0093639), as applied to claims 18 and 30 above, and further in view of Loeb (U.S. 4,283,913).
Re claim 28:
Nissen discloses the process (Figure 1) according to claim 18 (as described above).
Nissen fails to disclose wherein the osmotic power unit comprises a cation exchange membrane and an anion exchange membrane and wherein the high salinity stream is passed over one side of the cation exchange membrane and one side of the anion exchange membrane, the low salinity stream being passed over a second side of the cation exchange membrane and a second side of the anion exchange membrane.
Loeb teaches wherein an osmotic power unit (Fig. 4 (see Col. 3, Line 10 - Col. 4, line 46)) comprises a cation exchange membrane (35, membrane permeable to cations - Col. 3, Lines 20-22) and an anion exchange membrane (34, membrane permeable to anions - Col. 3, Lines 20-22) and wherein a high salinity stream (see Fig. 4 at 24 and Col. 3, Line 14 - “…concentrated brine in line 24…”) is passed over one side of the cation exchange membrane (35) and one side of the anion exchange membrane (34)(see Fig. 4 and Col. 3, Lines 14-31), a low salinity stream (see Fig. 4 at 20 and Col. 4, Lines 21-22 - “…dilute brine drawn…through the pipe 20…”) being passed over a second side of the cation exchange membrane (35) and a second side of the anion exchange membrane (34)(see Fig. 4 and Col. 3, Lines 14-31).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the osmotic power unit of Nissen after that of Loeb, thereby making the osmotic power unit of Nissen comprise a cation exchange membrane and an anion exchange membrane such that the high salinity stream of Nissen is passed over one side of the cation exchange membrane and one side of the anion exchange membrane, and such that the low salinity stream of Nissen is passed over a second side of the cation exchange membrane and a second side of the anion exchange membrane, all as taught by Loeb, for the advantage of being able to produce one kilowatt of useful power using borax as a solute (Loeb; Col. 3, Lines 57-58).
Re claim 32:
Nissen discloses the brine saturation system (Figure 1) according to claim 30 (as described above).
Nissen fails to disclose wherein the osmotic power unit is arranged to generate electricity through Reverse Electrodialysis (RED).
Loeb teaches wherein an osmotic power unit (Fig. 4 (see Col. 3, Line 10 - Col. 4, line 46)) is arranged to generate electricity through Reverse Electrodialysis (RED)(see Fig. 4, and Col. 3, Line 10 - Col. 4, line 46)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the osmotic power unit of Nissen after that of Loeb, thereby arranging the osmotic power unit to generate electricity through Reverse Electrodialysis, as taught by Loeb, for the advantage of being able to produce one kilowatt of useful power using borax as a solute (Loeb; Col. 3, Lines 57-58).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 34 is allowed.
Claims 21-26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 34 is allowed and Claims 21-26 would be allowed primarily because the prior art of record cannot anticipate Applicant’s claimed invention by a single reference nor render Applicant’s claimed invention obvious by the combination of more than one reference.
Additionally, the prior art of record does not teach “wherein the second part of the high salinity stream in provided to a chlorine production process” as within the context of the claimed invention as disclosed and within the context of the other limitations present in claims 21-22.
Additionally, the prior art of record does not teach the process “further comprising both (i) increasing the pressure of the high salinity stream prior to passage through the osmotic power unit and (ii) decreasing the pressure of the output stream by passage through a pressure exchanger in which pressure is transferred from the output stream to the high salinity stream” as within the context of the claimed invention as disclosed and within the context of the other limitations present in claims 23-26.
Additionally, the prior art of record does not teach “at least one electrolytic cell configured to produce chlorine from electrolysis of brine, wherein the system is arranged such that the electrolytic cell receives at least part of the high salinity stream from the brine saturation system” as within the context of the claimed invention as disclosed and within the context of the other limitations present in claim 34.
Therefore, the prior art of record cannot anticipate Applicant’s claimed invention by a single reference nor render Applicant’s claimed invention obvious by one or more references.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Loren C Edwards whose telephone number is (571)272-7133. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6AM-430PM.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/LOREN C EDWARDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746 8/1/25