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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, “vapor” in line 4 of the claim should read “the purified vapor”.
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 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 20 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 2 recites the limitation "the purified vapor stream" in lines 1-2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 is rejected to because of its dependence upon claim 2.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the lighter purified vapor" in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the heavier contaminated fluid" in line 6 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected because of its dependence upon claim 6.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the purified vapor stream" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: The connection of the reverse osmosis device with the claimed apparatus.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected because of their dependence upon claim 8.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: The connection of the at least one energy recapture device and the at least one thermal distillation device with the claimed apparatus.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the at least one energy recapture device" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the at least one thermal distillation device" in in lines 2-3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: The connection of the at least one energy recapture device and the at least one thermal distillation device with the claimed apparatus.
Claim 14 recites the limitation " the at least one energy recapture device " in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation " the at least one thermal distillation device " in lines 2-3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the finned tube" in line 13 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 is rejected because of its dependence upon claim 15.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: The connection of the at least one energy recapture device and the at least one thermal distillation device with the claimed apparatus.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the thermal distillation device" in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 19 depends upon claim 18 and is an exact copy of the limitations of claim 18. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-7 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katz (US Patent Application No. 20150360970 A1) hereinafter Katz, in view of Sparrow et al (US Patent Application No. 20140061958 A1) hereinafter Sparrow.
Regarding Claim 1, Katz teaches an apparatus to remove purified vapor from a contaminated fluid (i.e., a thermal desalination apparatus comprising; Abstract) with a housing shown in Figs. 5 and 6 (i.e., an outer housing) that comprises an inlet wherein contaminated water flows (i.e., with at least one inlet; wherein contaminated water flows into the at least one inlet), at least 2 outlets (i.e., and two outlets) with a first outlet exits purified vapor (i.e., and purified vapor exits from a first outlet) and a second outlet exits contaminated fluid that has been concentrated (i.e., and the contaminated water with a portion removed as vapor exits from a second outlet; Paragraph 0009), an energy source that causes the contaminated fluid to heat and evaporate (i.e., a heat energy source) at least a portion of the fluid in the modified heat exchanger (i.e., connected to the tube heat exchanger causing a portion of the contaminated water in the finned tube heat exchanger to form the vapor; at least one tube heat exchanger inside the outer housing; Abstract), and a perforated pipe (i.e., an inner tube with a plurality of holes inside the tube heat exchanger; Fig. 6, #62) where one of the flow paths is located inside the pipe (Paragraph 0047) and the vapor travels into the perforated base pipe (i.e., the vapor flows through the inner tube to the first outlet; Paragraph 0048) which lets the lighter vapor pass through (i.e., wherein the inner tube is connected to the first outlet; and exits the thermal desalination apparatus; Paragraph 0045).
Katz does not teach that the heat exchanger is a finned tube heat exchanger.
However, Sparrow teaches that a radiator may have finned tubes (i.e., finned tube heat exchanger) for the purpose of enhancing heat transfer (Paragraph 0182).
Sparrow is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to an apparatus, method, and system for desalinating saltwater using evaporation (Paragraph 0001). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the heat exchanger as taught by Katz to have fins as taught by Sparrow because the fins would enhance the heat transfer of the heat exchanger.
Furthermore, the limitations “wherein contaminated water flows into the at least one inlet and purified vapor exits from a first outlet and the contaminated water with a portion removed as vapor exits from a second outlet” and “the vapor flows through the inner tube to the first outlet and exits the thermal desalination apparatus” are directed toward materials or articles worked upon by the claimed invention and are therefore not subject to patentability. The inclusion of materials or articles worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Furthermore, the limitation “causing a portion of the contaminated water in the finned tube heat exchanger to form the vapor” is directed toward an expected result from the practice or use of the claimed invention and is therefore not subject to patentability. Where the prior art product structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established because the devices meets the limitations of the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP §2111.02 II).
Regarding Claim 2, Katz in view of Sparrow makes obvious the apparatus of claim 1. Katz further teaches a pre-warmer heat exchanger (i.e., a pre-warmer heat exchanger) to pre-warm the feed salt water prior to entering the heat exchanger (Paragraph 0085) and that purified steam can be used to run through an additional heat exchanger and condensed into fresh water (i.e., to use the purified vapor stream to increase the feed temperature of the contaminated water before the contaminated water enters the thermal desalination apparatus; Paragraph 0086). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the steam to preheat the feed salt water given a pre-warmer heat exchanger and purified steam that is desired to be condensed into fresh water.
Furthermore, the limitation “to use the purified vapor stream to increase the feed temperature of the contaminated water before the contaminated water enters the thermal desalination apparatus” is directed toward a manner or method by which the invention is used and is not subject to patentability. The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Regarding Claim 3, Katz in view of Sparrow makes obvious the apparatus of claim 1. Katz further teaches that the energy source can be heat generated by flare gas (Paragraph 0074) or solar energy (i.e., wherein the thermal desalination apparatus uses an energy source selected from the group consisting of flare gas energy, solar energy, and combinations thereof; Paragraph 0071).
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein the thermal desalination apparatus uses an energy source selected from the group consisting of flare gas energy, solar energy, and combinations thereof” is directed toward a manner or method by which the invention is used and is not subject to patentability. The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Regarding Claim 4, Katz in view of Sparrow makes obvious the apparatus of claim 1. Katz further teaches that the purified steam or vapor can be directly cooled and condensed into fresh water (i.e., further comprising a condensing device to condense the vapor into purified water; Paragraphs 0081 and 0086).
Regarding Claim 5, Katz in view of Sparrow makes obvious the apparatus of claim 2. Katz further teaches that flare gas heat can be used as the energy source (i.e., a gas burner inside the thermal desalination apparatus, and the gas burner provides at least a portion of the energy to heat the contaminated water; Paragraph 0074).
Regarding Claim 6, Katz in view of Sparrow makes obvious the apparatus of claim 1. Katz further teaches that there are at least two different flow paths (i.e., at least two different flow paths) from at least one inlet to the first outlet and the second outlet (i.e., a first flow path connecting at least one inlet to the first outlet and a second flow path connecting the inlet to the second outlet) where differences in the flow paths cause a lighter purified vapor to take a different path than the heavier contaminated fluid (i.e., the first flow path and the second flow path flow through at least a portion of the thermal desalination apparatus wherein a difference in density causes the lighter purified vapor to take a different path than the heavier contaminated fluid) with the vapor exiting the first outlet (i.e., before the purified vapor exits the first outlet) and the contaminated fluid exiting the second outlet (i.e., and the contaminated fluid exits the second outlet of the thermal desalination apparatus; Abstract) and that the flow paths comprise tubes with aligned holes (i.e., wherein the inner tube inside the finned tube heat exchanger comprises; Paragraph 0028).
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein a difference in density causes the lighter purified vapor to take a different path than the heavier contaminated fluid before the purified vapor exits the first outlet and the contaminated fluid exits the second outlet of the thermal desalination apparatus” is directed toward materials or articles worked upon by the claimed invention and is therefore not subject to patentability. The inclusion of materials or articles worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Regarding Claim 7, Katz in view of Sparrow makes obvious the apparatus of claim 1. Katz further teaches that the purified steam can be used for further work in steam turbine generation after exiting the heat exchanger (i.e., wherein the purified vapor stream is connected to a steam turbine that uses the energy from the vapor; Paragraph 0086)
Furthermore, the limitation “a steam turbine that uses the energy from the vapor” is directed toward a manner or method by which the invention is used and is not subject to patentability. The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Regarding Claim 11, Katz in view of Sparrow makes obvious the apparatus of claim 6. Katz further teaches a conical half tube with aligned holes (i.e., wherein the at least one additional flow path is created by the group consisting of conical shaped plating with a plurality of aligned holes) for creating multiple flow paths for the lighter vapor to rise through the heat exchanger (i.e., at least one additional flow path inside the thermal desalination apparatus; Paragraph 0031).
Regarding Claim 12, Katz in view of Sparrow makes obvious the apparatus of claim 1. Katz further teaches a control system (i.e., a control panel; Fig. 8, #402) for the apparatus with sensors that processes data related to flow rates (i.e., and at least one flow control sensor; Paragraph 0055) with automatic control to coordinate the operation of the components in real-time (i.e., to operate the at least one thermal distillation device in a coordinated manner; Paragraph 0057) and to decide when to recycle or dispose of each stream and that the control system can fix consistent energy production issues by combining water generation with other alternative energies (i.e., the at least one energy recapture device; Paragraph 0058, 00070).
Furthermore, the limitation “in a coordinated manner” is directed toward a manner or method by which the invention is used and is not subject to patentability. The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Regarding Claim 13, Katz in view of Sparrow makes obvious the apparatus of claim 6. Katz further teaches that pumps can be deployed to quickly extract purified vapor from the contaminated fluid (i.e., further comprising pumps connected to the first; Paragraph 0041) and that scaling can be decreased by quickly removing the contaminated water with pumps on the contaminated fluid outlet (i.e., and second outlets; Paragraph 0041).
Regarding Claim 14, Katz in view of Sparrow makes obvious the apparatus of claim 13. Katz further teaches a control system (i.e., a control panel; Fig. 8, #402) for the apparatus with sensors that processes data related to flow rates (i.e., and at least one flow control sensor; Paragraph 0055) with automatic control to coordinate the operation of the components in real-time (i.e., to operate the at least one thermal distillation device in a coordinated manner; and the control panel operates the pumps attached to the first and second outlets in a coordinated manner; Paragraph 0057) and to decide when to recycle or dispose of each stream and that the control system can fix consistent energy production issues by combining water generation with other alternative energies (i.e., the at least one energy recapture device; Paragraph 0058, 0070).
Furthermore, the limitation “in a coordinated manner” is directed toward a manner or method by which the invention is used and is not subject to patentability. The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Regarding Claim 15, Katz teaches an apparatus to remove purified vapor from a contaminated fluid (i.e., obtaining a thermal desalination apparatus comprising; Abstract) with a housing shown in Figs. 5 and 6 (i.e., an outer housing) that comprises an inlet wherein contaminated water flows (i.e., with at least one inlet; wherein contaminated water flows into the at least one inlet; flowing water through the thermal desalination apparatus), at least 2 outlets (i.e., and two outlets) with a first outlet exits purified vapor (i.e., and purified vapor exits from a first outlet; exiting the purified vapor from the first outlet) and a second outlet exits contaminated fluid that has been concentrated (i.e., and the contaminated water with a portion removed as vapor exits from a second outlet; exiting the contaminated water with a portion removed as vapor from the second outlet; Paragraph 0009), an energy source that causes the contaminated fluid to heat and evaporate (i.e., a heat energy source) at least a portion of the fluid in the modified heat exchanger (i.e., connected to the tube heat exchanger causing a portion of the contaminated water in the finned tube heat exchanger to form the vapor; at least one tube heat exchanger inside the outer housing; using the tube heat exchanger to transfer heat energy to the contaminated water inside the tube; Abstract), and a perforated pipe (i.e., an inner tube with a plurality of holes inside the tube heat exchanger; Fig. 6, #62) where one of the flow paths is located inside the pipe (Paragraph 0047)and the vapor travels into the perforated base pipe (i.e., the vapor flows through the inner tube to the first outlet; Paragraph 0048) which lets the lighter vapor pass through (i.e., wherein the inner tube is connected to the first outlet; and exits the thermal desalination apparatus; Paragraph 0045).
Katz does not teach that the heat exchanger is a finned tube heat exchanger.
However, Sparrow teaches that a radiator may have finned tubes (i.e., finned tube heat exchanger) for the purpose of enhancing heat transfer (Paragraph 0182).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the heat exchanger as taught by Katz to have fins as taught by Sparrow because the fins would enhance the heat transfer of the heat exchanger.
Regarding Claim 16, Katz in view of Sparrow makes obvious the apparatus of claim 15. Katz further teaches that the purified steam or vapor can be directly cooled and condensed into fresh water (i.e., further comprising condensing the vapor exiting the thermal desalination apparatus using a condensing device; Paragraphs 0081 and 0086).
Regarding Claim 17, Katz teaches an apparatus to remove purified vapor from a contaminated fluid (i.e., a thermal desalination apparatus comprising; Abstract) with a housing shown in Figs. 5 and 6 (i.e., an outer housing) that comprises an inlet wherein contaminated water flows (i.e., with at least one inlet; wherein contaminated water flows into the at least one inlet), at least 2 outlets (i.e., and two outlets) with a first outlet exits purified vapor (i.e., and purified vapor exits from a first outlet) and a second outlet exits contaminated fluid that has been concentrated (i.e., and the contaminated water with a portion removed as vapor exits from a second outlet; Paragraph 0009), an energy source that causes the contaminated fluid to heat and evaporate (i.e., a heat energy source) at least a portion of the fluid in the modified heat exchanger (i.e., connected to the tube heat exchanger causing a portion of the contaminated water in the finned tube heat exchanger to form the vapor; at least one tube heat exchanger inside the outer housing; Abstract), and a perforated pipe (i.e., an inner tube with a plurality of holes inside the tube heat exchanger; Fig. 6, #62) where one of the flow paths is located inside the pipe (Paragraph 0047) and the vapor travels into the perforated base pipe (i.e., the vapor flows through the inner tube to the first outlet; Paragraph 0048) which lets the lighter vapor pass through (i.e., wherein the inner tube is connected to the first outlet; and exits the thermal desalination apparatus; Paragraph 0045). Katz further teaches a control system (i.e., at least one control panel; Fig. 8, #402) for the apparatus with sensors that processes data related to flow rates (i.e., at least one sensor inside the thermal desalination apparatus; Paragraph 0055) with automatic control to coordinate the operation of the components in real-time (i.e., that operates the heat energy source and the at least one sensor inside the thermal desalination apparatus in a coordinated manner; Paragraph 0057).
Katz does not teach that the heat exchanger is a finned tube heat exchanger.
However, Sparrow teaches that a radiator may have finned tubes (i.e., finned tube heat exchanger) for the purpose of enhancing heat transfer (Paragraph 0182).
Sparrow is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to an apparatus, method, and system for desalinating saltwater using evaporation (Paragraph 0001). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the heat exchanger as taught by Katz to have fins as taught by Sparrow because the fins would enhance the heat transfer of the heat exchanger.
Furthermore, the limitations “wherein contaminated water flows into the at least one inlet and purified vapor exits from a first outlet and the contaminated water with a portion removed as vapor exits from a second outlet” and “the vapor flows through the inner tube to the first outlet and exits the thermal desalination apparatus” are directed toward materials or articles worked upon by the claimed invention and are therefore not subject to patentability. The inclusion of materials or articles worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Furthermore, the limitation “causing a portion of the contaminated water in the finned tube heat exchanger to form the vapor” is directed toward an expected result from the practice or use of the claimed invention and is therefore not subject to patentability. Where the prior art product structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established because the devices meets the limitations of the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP §2111.02 II).
Furthermore, the limitation “in a coordinated manner” is directed toward a manner or method by which the invention is used and is not subject to patentability. The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Regarding Claim 18, Katz in view of Sparrow makes obvious the apparatus of claim 17. Katz further teaches that the purified steam or vapor can be directly cooled and condensed into fresh water (i.e., further comprising a condensing device to condense the vapor into water; Paragraphs 0081 and 0086).
Regarding Claim 19, Katz in view of Sparrow makes obvious the apparatus of claim 18. Katz further teaches that the purified steam or vapor can be directly cooled and condensed into fresh water (i.e., further comprising a condensing device to condense the vapor into water; Paragraphs 0081 and 0086).
Regarding Claim 20, Katz in view of Sparrow makes obvious the apparatus of claim 18. Katz further teaches that pumps can be deployed to quickly extract purified vapor from the contaminated fluid (i.e., further comprising pumps connected to the first outlet; Paragraph 0041), that scaling can be decreased by quickly removing the contaminated water with pumps on the contaminated fluid outlet (i.e., and the second outlet of the thermal desalination apparatus; Paragraph 0041), and that a control system (i.e., the control panel; Fig. 8, #402) for the apparatus with sensors that processes data related to flow rates (i.e., and at least one flow control sensor; Paragraph 0055) with automatic control to coordinate the operation of the components in real-time (i.e., to operate the at least one thermal desalination device in a coordinated manner; and the control panel operates the pumps attached to the first outlet and the second outlet of the thermal distillation device in a coordinated manner; Paragraph 0057) and to decide when to recycle or dispose of each stream and that the control system can fix consistent energy production issues by combining water generation with other alternative energies (i.e., the at least one energy recapture device; Paragraph 0058, 0070).
Furthermore, the limitation “in a coordinated manner” is directed toward a manner or method by which the invention is used and is not subject to patentability. The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katz in view of Sparrow as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Metz et al (US Patent Application No. 20110180384 A1) hereinafter Metz.
Regarding Claim 8, Katz in view of Sparrow makes obvious the apparatus of claim 1. Katz further teaches that a two or three phase separator at high pressure can be located prior to entering the heat exchanger (Fig. 4, #420; Paragraph 0063).
Katz in view of Sparrow does not teach that the apparatus further comprises at least one reverse osmosis device.
However, Metz teaches that reverse osmosis (i.e., further comprises at least one reverse osmosis device) can be used prior to multi-stage-flash distillation (Paragraph 0016) and that the high pressure of the fluid from the reverse osmosis process allows for an increased efficiency of desalination overall (Paragraph 0022).
Metz is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the desalination of sea water for use as drinking water (Paragraph 0001). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the separator taught by Katz in view of Sparrow with the reverse osmosis as taught by Metz because the reverse osmosis system would improve the overall efficiency of the desalination.
Regarding Claim 9, Katz in view of Sparrow in view of Metz makes obvious the apparatus of claim 8. Metz further teaches that energy recovery can occur after the separation step by means of a turbocharger or a Pelton wheel to transfer the pressure as work to a different part of the process (i.e., at least one pressure recovery device connected to the at least one reverse osmosis device; Paragraph 0018).
Regarding Claim 10, Katz in view of Sparrow in view of Metz makes obvious the apparatus of claim 9. Metz further teaches that the turbine or Pelton wheel is connected to the concentrate stream to recover the pressure energy (i.e., wherein the at least one pressure recovery device captures pressure energy from brine exiting the at least one reverse osmosis device; Paragraph 0018).
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 06/30/2025 has been entered.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the amendment of claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 11, and 15-20 has been acknowledged.
In view of the amendment to the drawings, the objections to the drawings have been withdrawn.
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, 4, 6-7, 11, and 15-20, the claim objections have been withdrawn, excluding a single objection for claim 1.
In view of the amendment to claim 4, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection for claim 4 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 06/30/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that Katz in view of Sparrows fails to teach the apparatus of claim 1 (Arguments filed 06/30/2025, Page 9 to Page 10, Paragraph 3).
Applicant argues that Katz in view of Sparrows fails to teach the control system tied into energy recapture systems (Arguments filed 06/30/2025, Page 10, Paragraphs 3-4).
Applicant argues that the fins taught by Sparrow are not applicable to the claimed heat exchange and flow structures because Sparrow pertains to an ambient air-based humidification/dehumidification process and also because Sparrow does not teach a finned tube heat exchanger with an inner perforated conduit for flow bifurcation, and because Sparrow does not teach direct thermal distillation inside a finned tube heat exchanger (Arguments filed 06/30/2025, Page 10, Paragraph 5 to Page 12, Paragraph 1).
Applicant argues that Katz does not teach the inner finned tube configuration (Arguments filed 06/30/2025, Page 12, Paragraphs 2-3).
Applicant argues that there is no motivation to combine Katz with Sparrow and a combination of Katz with Sparrow is improper because the systems function on fundamentally different thermodynamic principles (Arguments filed 06/30/2025, Page 12, Paragraph 4 to Page 13, Paragraph 2).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that Katz in view of Sparrow fails to teach the apparatus of instant claim 1, Katz teaches all elements of claim 1 except the inclusion of fins on the shell and tube heat exchanger. Below are the figures of Katz representing the heat exchanger:
PNG
media_image1.png
258
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
272
410
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
662
436
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The next figures are those included in the instant application for the representation of the heat exchanger:
PNG
media_image4.png
366
618
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
326
496
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
738
466
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The figures are nearly identical, as are the descriptions of the heat exchanger. Sparrow is used to teach that it is common knowledge to add fins to a heat exchanger for the purpose of enhancing the heat transfer of the tube.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that Katz in view of Sparrows fails to teach the control system tied into energy recapture systems, Katz further teaches a control system (i.e., a control panel; Fig. 8, #402) for the apparatus with sensors that processes data related to flow rates (i.e., and at least one flow control sensor; Paragraph 0055) with automatic control to coordinate the operation of the components in real-time (i.e., to operate the at least one thermal distillation device in a coordinated manner; Paragraph 0057) and to decide when to recycle or dispose of each stream and that the control system can fix consistent energy production issues by combining water generation with other alternative energies (i.e., the at least one energy recapture device; Paragraph 0058, 00070).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that Sparrow is not applicable to the claimed invention, Sparrow pertains to an apparatus, method, and system for desalinating saltwater using evaporation (Paragraph 0001) which is the same field as a thermal desalination apparatus as designated in line 1 of the instant claim 1. The method of desalination may be different, but the teaching used from Sparrow is that fins added onto a surface will increase the heat transfer of said surface. The materials or articles having their heat exchanged on either side of said surface is irrelevant to the teaching of the fins.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that Katz does not teach the inner finned tube configuration, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that there is no motivation to combine Katz with Sparrow and a combination of Katz with Sparrow is improper because the systems function on fundamentally different thermodynamic principles, the motivation to combine the fins of Sparrow with Katz is Sparrow teaches that a radiator (i.e., heat exchanger) may have finned tubes for the purpose of enhancing heat transfer (Paragraph 0182). Furthermore, while Katz and Sparrow utilize different mediums for heat transfer, both inventions utilize heat exchangers which operate on the same principle of transferring heat from a hotter substance to a colder substance and Sparrow teaches that the transfer may be enhanced with the addition of fins to a tube that is being used to transfer said heat.
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 at (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