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 Status
Rejected Claims: 20-38 and 54-58
Withdrawn Claims: 12-19 and 39-53
Cancelled Claims: 1-11
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12 APRIL 2026 has been entered.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the amendment of claims 20, 24, 28, and 36 and the addition of new claims 54-58 have been acknowledged.
In view of the amendment to claim 28, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claims 20, 24, 28, and 36, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been modified to account for the amended claim limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 12 APRIL 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues, regarding the amendments to instant claim 20, that none of the previously cited prior art disclose controlling the pumps in response to feed water condition, quality of product water required, and seasonal temperature changes. Liberman does not teach controlling quality of product water or seasonal temperature changes of feed water, Atia only discusses general fresh water end use determining required water quality and teaches controlling feedwater temperature but not in response to seasonal temperature changes, and Snyder only teaches a minimum pressure requirement for permeate purity and not an active control of permeate purity and only discusses temperature control but not related to seasonal temperature changes. Therefore, instant claim 20 is allowable (Arguments filed 12 APRIL 2026, Page 18 to Page 19, Paragraph 2; Page 20, Paragraph 7 to Page 22, Paragraph 4).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to instant claim 20 and the amended limitation of controlling pumps in response to the quality of product water required have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. For more details, see the rejection of instant claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 below. Furthermore, Atia teaches feedwater salinity and temperature control, which both fall under the limitation of “feedwater condition” and the temperature control reads upon the seasonal temperature changes of said feedwater. Atia teaches that feedwater temperature changes membrane efficiency, which means that the flux of a membrane is different based upon feedwater temperatures. As such, seasonal temperature changes of the feed water are changes to the feedwater temperature and so these two factors are the same. Therefore, instant claim 20 is not allowable.
Applicant argues that Atia teaches control schemes of electrically powered pumps which would not be obvious to modify Liberman’s mechanically driven pumps because electrically driven pumps have much narrower limitations for their control parameters (i.e., frequency control of the rotational speed of the pump) and so the pumps cannot be controlled in wide enough rotation ranges to compensate for the widely changing conditions. Furthermore, the electrical pumps taught by Atia and Snyder cannot perform the start-up limitations due to the electrically driven motor requirements, but that turbine driven pumps are capable of starting up in this manner. Therefore, instant claim 20 is allowable (Arguments filed 12 APRIL 2026, Page 19, Paragraph 3 to Page 20, Paragraph 6).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments, Liberman teaches the driving of pumps directly via a turbine for use in water desalination for reverse osmosis as an alternative to electrically driven pumps (Abstract; Paragraphs 0001-0002). Atia teaches the various control schemes of high pressure pumps for reverse osmosis desalination of seawater. Applicant asserts that using a known control scheme for a pump driven in a different manner is beyond one of ordinary skill in the art, but the Examiner disagrees. Liberman explicitly teaches that these pumps are alternatives to each other and while the mechanics of operation are different, the control parameters of flow rate, as well as the others listed, would still translate to rotation/pressure control of the pump. One of ordinary skill in the art is capable of taking lessons from electrically driven pump control schemes and translating them to turbine driven pump control schemes. Therefore, the controls taught by Atia can be applied to the turbine driven pumps as taught by Liberman and instant claim 20 is not allowable.
Applicant argues that instant claims 21-38 depend upon instant claim 20, which is allowable, and so instant claims 21-38 are also allowable (Arguments filed 12 APRIL 2026, Page 22, Paragraph 5).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments, instant claim 20 is not allowable and so instant claims 21-38 which depend upon instant claim 20 are also not allowable.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 32 uses the term “at least one pressure centre” which is an ambiguous term in the art. Applicant defines a pressure centre as a single pump or a group of pumps for a large scale plant (Page 5, Paragraph 4).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 26 recites the limitation “the plant comprises controlling means adapted to control at least one selected from a group consisting of the operating pressure of said at least one high pressure pump, the rotation speed of said at least one high pressure pump and any combination thereof”, emphasis added by Examiner. Page 2, Paragraph 2 and Page 3, Paragraph 4 of the instant specification state that the method for controlling pumping pressure requires a step up of pump speed which requires an increase in electrical frequency. Therefore, the interpreted pump control means are a variable speed pump controller or equivalents thereof.
Claim Objections
Claims 36 and 55 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 36, “aging off said” in line 5 of the claim should read “aging of said”.
In Claim 55, “of said the feed water” in line 13 of the claim should read “of the feed water”.
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 24 and 36 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 24 recites the limitation "wherein the at least one selected from a group consisting of the operating pressure of said at least one high pressure pump, the rotation speed of said at least one high pressure pump and any combination thereof is set or controllable by said at least one nonelectrical source, in response to flow of feed water, a volume of feed water, an aging of said at least one reverse osmosis membrane, product water quantity required, daily tidal variations, temperature changes of said feed water, and salinity of said feed water" in lines 1-7 of the claim. This limitation is identical to the limitation in claim 20, but lacks the previous variables that the pump is responding to of feed water condition, quality of product water required, and seasonal temperature changes of said feedwater. While it could be construed that these variables are in addition to the previous variables, the lack of some indication such as “further wherein” and acknowledgement of adding the additional variables to the list makes it unclear whether the limitation is supposed to replace the previous list of variables or is supposed to add to the previous list.
Claim 36 recites the limitation "the flow of feed water" in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 36 recites the limitation "the volume of feed water" in in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 36 recites the limitation "the aging of said at least one reverse osmosis membrane" in lines 5-6 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 36 recites the limitation "the daily tidal variations" in in line 6 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 36 recites the limitation "the temperature changes of said feed water" in lines 6-7 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 36 recites the limitation "the salinity of said feed water" in in lines 7-8 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 26 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 26 recites controlling means and then expands upon the controlling variables by creating a group that includes the previous required “feed water condition”, “quality of the product water required”, and “seasonal temperature changes of the feedwater” and additional parameters, but then states that only one of the parameters is required. Therefore, claim 26 is expanding the scope of claim 20 rather than further limiting the scope. 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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 20-22, 25-27, 30, 33-35, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liberman et al US Patent Application No. 20160236947 A1 (hereinafter Liberman) in view of Atia et al US Patent Application No. 20190358588 A1 (hereinafter Atia) in view of Roitel et al US Patent Application No. US 20180318767 A1 (hereinafter Roitel).
Regarding Claim 20, Liberman teaches a pumping apparatus for a desalination plant (i.e., a large scale water desalination plant, comprising; Paragraph 0001) in which the reverse osmosis plant (Fig. 3, #62) receives seawater (i.e., at least one feed water inlet being connected to; Fig. 3, #62a) and the pumps (i.e., at least one high pressure pump; Fig. 3, #56) drive the reverse osmosis process (i.e., to drive feed water through at least one reverse osmosis membrane; Paragraphs 0053-0054) and the pumps are powered by gas turbines and/or steam turbines (i.e., said at least one high pressure pump powered by at least one nonelectrical source; Abstract).
Liberman does not teach wherein at least one selected from a group consisting of the operating pressure of said at least one high pressure pump, the rotation speed of said at least one high pressure pump and any combination thereof is set or controllable by said at least one nonelectrical source, in response to feed water condition and seasonal temperature changes of said feed water.
However, Atia teaches the use of variable-speed pumps (i.e., wherein at least one selected from a group consisting of the rotation speed of said at least one high pressure pump) for the maximization of potable water production by actively controlling feedwater salinity (i.e., in response to feed water condition and) for the purpose of minimizing cost (Paragraph 0014) and optimizing energy consumption based on feedwater temperature because the feedwater temperature plays a role in system efficiency (i.e., seasonal temperature changes of said feed water; Paragraphs 0005 and 0009). Controlling the system based upon feedwater temperature is the same as controlling the system based upon the seasonal temperature changes of the feedwater. Furthermore, Atia teaches that freshwater end-use determines the required water quality and the intensity of the treatment needed (Paragraph 0013).
Atia is analogous to the claimed invention is because it pertains to systems for desalinating feedwater (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the desalination plant as taught by Liberman with the control system as taught by Atia because the control system would minimize costs for desalinating feedwater.
Liberman in view of Atia does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one high pressure pump is set or controllable by said at least one nonelectrical source in response to quality of the product water required.
However, Roitel teaches the detection of conductivity of reverse osmosis permeate to calculate a rejection rate of a reverse osmosis membrane (Paragraph 0103) which will decrease over time and the reverse osmosis recovery will need to decreased in response so that downstream treatment modules will be able to keep up with the increased ionic load (i.e., wherein the at least one high pressure pump is set or controllable by said at least one nonelectrical source in response to quality of the product water required; Paragraph 0112).
Roitel is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a water purification system utilizing reverse osmosis (Paragraph 0001). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the desalination plant made obvious by Liberman in view of Atia with the control based on permeate conductivity as taught by Roitel because the conductivity would determine the rejection rate of the membrane and allow control such that downstream processes are not overwhelmed by increased ionic species.
Regarding Claim 21, Liberman further teaches the pumps are powered by steam turbines (i.e., said at least one nonelectrical source is at least one steam turbine; Abstract).
Regarding Claim 22, Liberman further teaches the pumps are powered by gas turbines (i.e., said at least one nonelectrical source is selected from a group consisting of gas turbine; Abstract).
Regarding Claim 25, Liberman further teaches eight steam turbines in an example (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0039) that drive pumps that utilize about 35 MW of energy in total (Paragraph 0047) which means each turbine produces more than 4 MW of energy each (i.e., wherein said at least one steam turbine is capable of producing at least 1 MW of energy).
Regarding Claim 26, Atia further teaches the use of variable-speed pumps (i.e., the rotation speed of said at least one high pressure pump) to maximization of potable water production by actively controlling feedwater salinity (i.e., according to at least one operating condition is selected from a group consisting of salinity of said feed water) for the purpose of minimizing cost (Paragraph 0014) using a control module (i.e., the plant comprising controlling means adapted to control at least one selected from a group consisting of; Abstract).
Regarding Claim 27, Liberman further teaches that an example of the desalination plant has an untreated seawater supply of 25 m3/s (Paragraph 0049) which converts to an input of 2,160,000 m3/day and would produce the requisite produced water of the instant claim (i.e., wherein said large scale water desalination plant is adapted to produce at least 100,000 m3 /day of product water).
Regarding Claim 30, Atia further teaches that the system comprises a controller for controlling the various modules (i.e., additionally comprising one or more controllers; Paragraph 0014) and that feedwater salinity, pump flow rate and pump pressure are increased to take advantage of excess electricity (i.e., adapted to regulate at least one selected from a group consisting of the operating pressure of said at least one high pressure pump, the rotation speed of said at least one high pressure pump, water flow and any combination thereof, being applied on said at least one high pressure pump; Paragraph 0022).
Regarding Claim 33, Liberman further teaches an alternative configuration in which a steam turbine (Fig. 2, #11’) which is driving a pair of primary pumps (i.e., wherein at least one of said steam turbine is connected to at least two high pressure pumps; Fig. 2, #12’; Paragraph 0048) where Fig. 2 shows the pump connections on opposite sides (i.e., preferably being connected to opposing sides thereof).
Regarding Claim 34, Liberman further teaches that it is known to utilize a gas turbine to drive a generator to provide electricity for pumps (i.e., additionally comprising at least one electrical source is in communication with said at least one high pressure pump; Paragraph 0002).
Regarding Claim 35, Liberman further teaches that it is known to utilize a gas turbine to drive a generator to provide electricity for pumps (i.e., additionally comprising: a. at least one gas turbine adapted to generate electricity; Paragraph 0002) with a waste heat boiler (i.e., b. at least one heat recovery steam generator) utilizing the exhaust gas from the gas turbine to generate steam (i.e., adapted to received hot exhaust from said at least one gas turbine, and to generate steam) which drives a steam turbine (i.e., wherein said steam generated by said at least one heat recovery steam generator is adapted to drive said at least one steam turbine; Paragraph 0004) which in turn is connected to a secondary pump (i.e., said at least one steam turbine being coupled to at least one of said high pressure pumps; Paragraph 0017).
Regarding Claim 38, Atia further teaches that the product water flows through a post-treatment stage (i.e., additionally comprising at least one posttreatment facility for further treatment of the product water; Paragraph 0024) to address freshwater end-use quality requirements (Paragraph 0013).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the system made obvious by Liberman in view of Atia in view of Roitel to have the post-treatment stage as taught by Atia because the post-treatment stage would address different end-use water quality requirements.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liberman in view of Atia in view of Roitel as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Al-Azazmeh et al US Patent Application No. 20190161366 A1 (hereinafter Al-Azazmeh) in view of Snyder US Patent Application No. 20130142677 A1 (hereinafter Snyder) with support from Grundfos, “BMS BMS hs BMS hp, BMST, BMSX, pressure boosting and reverse osmosis systems”, Grundfos Data Booklet, 12 APRIL 2019, https://www.grundfos.com/search?query=bms%20hs&search-type=search&tab=documentation&category=documentation (hereinafter Grundfos).
Regarding Claim 23, Liberman in view of Atia in view of Roitel does not explicitly teach wherein at least one selected from a group consisting of the operating pressure of said at least one high pressure pump, the rotation speed of said at least one high pressure pump and any combination thereof is controllable by altering at least one selected from a group consisting of steam pressure, steam flow, water flow and any combination thereof.
However, Al-Azazmeh teaches a plurality of control systems that can adjust temperature and pressure of steam and adjust the output of the steam turbine (Paragraph 0098) and the pump that pressurizes saline water for reverse osmosis is powered by the shaft work of the steam turbine (i.e., wherein at least one selected from a group consisting of the operating pressure of said at least one high pressure pump, the rotation speed of said at least one high pressure pump and any combination thereof is controllable by altering at least one selected from a group consisting of steam pressure; Paragraph 0028) for the purpose of reducing irreversibly lost energy in the forms, for example, of heat loss to the environment or pressure drop (Paragraph 0100).
Al-Azazmeh is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a desalination system to produce freshwater utilizing reverse osmosis (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the desalination plant made obvious by Liberman in view of Atia in view of Roitel with the control system as taught by Al-Azazmeh because the control system would reduce the energy lost by the desalination plant.
Liberman in view of Atia in view of Roitel in view of Al-Azazmeh does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of said high pressure pump is set or controllable by said at least one nonelectrical source to rotate in a range of about 500 RPM to about 5000 RPM.
However, Snyder teaches that a pump can be utilized at a range of speeds from 1800-3600 RPM with a range of liquid flow rates for the purpose of maintaining a specific temperature range for the working fluid (i.e., wherein at least one of said high pressure pump is set or controllable by said at least one nonelectrical source to rotate in a range of about 500 RPM to about 5000 RPM based on at least one parameter associated with said feedwater; Paragraph 0089).
Furthermore, Snyder describes Grundfos pumps being used (Paragraph 0051) and Grundfos teaches reverse osmosis pumps with a rotational speed of up to 5500 min-1 with the pump ramping up from 0 to maximum speed and operating between 1700-5500 rpm for variable speed applications (Page 11). A prima facie case of obviousness exists for claimed ranges that overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976))(See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Snyder is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a purification system for water including reverse osmosis (Abstract) where the raw water includes oceans and wells (Paragraph 0043). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the desalination plant made obvious by Liberman in view of Atia in view of Roitel in view of Al-Azazmeh with the pump speed range as taught by Snyder because the pumping speed range taught by Snyder would control the temperature of the working fluid.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liberman in view of Atia in view of Roitel as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Hashimoto et al US Patent Application No. US 20160115055 A1 (hereinafter Hashimoto).
Regarding Claim 24, Atia further teaches the use of variable-speed pumps (i.e., wherein the at least one selected from a group consisting of the rotation speed of said at least one high pressure pump) for the maximization of potable water production by actively controlling feedwater salinity (i.e., in response to flow of feed water, product quantity required, salinity of said feed water, volume of feed water, and) for the purpose of minimizing cost (Paragraph 0014) and optimizing energy consumption based on feedwater temperature because the feedwater temperature plays a role in system efficiency (i.e., temperature changes of said feed water; Paragraphs 0005 and 0009).
Liberman further teaches the pumps are powered by gas turbines and/or steam turbines (i.e., said at least one high pressure pump is set or controllable by said at least one nonelectrical source; Abstract).
Roitel further teaches that age of a membrane decreases permeability and so pressure is increased to maintain the flow rate (i.e., an aging of said at least one reverse osmosis membrane; Paragraph 0114).
Liberman in view of Atia in view of Roitel does not teach setting or controlling in response to daily tidal variations.
However, Hashimoto teaches that flow to a reverse osmosis membrane can be controlled based upon the rise and fall of the tide or during seasons because oxygen, nutriments, and other factors change with regard to the tide and can lead to increased biofilm production (i.e., daily tidal variations; Paragraph 0016).
Hashimoto is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to water treatment systems with reverse osmosis membranes that treat seawater (Abstract; Paragraph 0001). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the desalination plant made obvious by Liberman in view of Atia in vies of Roitel with the control based on the tide as taught by Hashimoto because the control would help prevent biofilm formation on the reverse osmosis membrane.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liberman in view of Atia in view of Roitel as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Nitto Hydranautics Nitto Group Company, ‘Technical Service Bulletin TSB118.14’, October 2013, https://membranes.com/knowledge-center/technical-service-bulletin-tsb/ (hereinafter Nitto).
Regarding Claim 28, Liberman in view of Atia in view of Roitel does not teach wherein a start-up step comprising increasing a feed pressure applied to said at least one reverse osmosis membrane at a maximum rate of 12 psi per second to slowly increase pressure on the at least one reverse osmosis membrane to a predetermined operational pressure is performed.
However, Nitto teaches that it is known not to exceed 10 psi/second at any time for the purpose of preventing damage to the membrane elements (i.e., wherein a start-up step comprising increasing a feed pressure applied to said at least one reverse osmosis membrane at a maximum rate of 12 psi per second to slowly increase pressure on the at least one reverse osmosis membrane to a predetermined operational pressure is performed; Page 2).
Nitto is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to reverse osmosis membrane start-up procedures (Entire document). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the desalination plant made obvious by Liberman in view of Atia in view of Roitel with the start-up step as taught by Nitto because the start-up step would prevent damage to the membrane elements.
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein a start-up step comprising increasing a feed pressure applied to said at least one reverse osmosis membrane at a maximum rate of 12 psi per second to slowly increase pressure on the at least one reverse osmosis membrane to a predetermined operational pressure is performed” 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.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liberman in view of Atia in view of Roitel as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Al-Azazmeh.
Regarding Claim 29, Liberman in view of Atia in view of Roitel does not explicitly teach additionally comprising one or more controllers, adapted to regulate at least one selected from a group consisting of steam pressure, steam flow and any combination thereof; being applied to said at least one steam turbine.
However, Al-Azazmeh teaches a plurality of control systems (i.e., additionally comprising one or more controllers) that can adjust temperature and pressure of steam (i.e., adapted to regulate at least one selected from a group consisting of steam pressure) and adjust the output of the steam turbine (i.e., being applied to said at least one steam turbine; Paragraph 0098) for the purpose of reducing irreversibly lost energy in the forms, for example, of heat loss to the environment or pressure drop (Paragraph 0100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the desalination plant made obvious by Liberman in view of Atia in view of Roitel with the control system as taught by Al-Azazmeh because the control system would reduce the energy lost by the desalination plant.
Claims 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Liberman in view of Atia in view of Roitel as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Takita et al US Patent Application No. 20090110563 A1 (hereinafter Takita).
Regarding Claim 31, Liberman in view of Atia in view of in view of Roitel does not explicitly teach additionally comprising at least one pressure vessels; at least one of said at least one pressure vessels containing said at least one reverse osmosis membrane.
However, Takita teaches a high-pressure chamber (Fig. 3, #9) of the reverse osmosis membrane cartridge (Fig. 3, #8; Paragraph 0115) for the purpose of power recovery to boost the pressure of the water after the first high-pressure pump (Paragraphs 0024-0025).
Takita is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a power recovery systems for a seawater desalination plant utilizing reverse osmosis membranes (Paragraph 0002). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the desalination plant as made obvious by Liberman in view of Atia in view of in view of Roitel with the high pressure chamber as taught by Takita because the high pressure chamber would allow for pressure recovery from the reverse osmosis process which would reduce energy needs for the initial high pressure pumping step.
Regarding Claim 32, Liberman further teaches that each of the primary pumps (i.e., at least one pressure centre) is a 15 MW pump (i.e., is provided having an output of at least 6 MW; Paragraph 0047).
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liberman in view of Atia in view of Roitel in view of Nitto as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Hashimoto.
Regarding Claim 36, Atia further teaches the use of variable-speed pumps (i.e., wherein the operating pressure of at least one high pressure pump is set or controllable) for the maximization of potable water production by actively controlling feedwater salinity (i.e., in response to flow of feed water, product quantity required, salinity of said feed water, volume of feed water, and) for the purpose of minimizing cost (Paragraph 0014) and optimizing energy consumption based on feedwater temperature because the feedwater temperature plays a role in system efficiency (i.e., temperature changes of said feed water, the seasonal temperature changes of said feed water; Paragraphs 0005 and 0009).
Liberman further teaches the pumps are powered by gas turbines and/or steam turbines (i.e., the operating pressure of at least one high pressure pump is set or controllable by said at least one nonelectrical source; Abstract).
Roitel further teaches that age of a membrane decreases permeability and so pressure is increased to maintain the flow rate (i.e., an aging of said at least one reverse osmosis membrane; Paragraph 0114) and the detection of conductivity of reverse osmosis permeate to calculate a rejection rate of a reverse osmosis membrane (Paragraph 0103) which will decrease over time and the reverse osmosis recovery will need to decreased in response so that downstream treatment modules will be able to keep up with the increased ionic load (i.e., quality of the product water required; Paragraph 0112).
Liberman in view of Atia in view of Roitel does not teach setting or controlling in response to daily tidal variations.
However, Hashimoto teaches that flow to a reverse osmosis membrane can be controlled based upon the rise and fall of the tide or during seasons because oxygen, nutriments, and other factors change with regard to the tide and can lead to increased biofilm production (i.e., daily tidal variations; Paragraph 0016).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the desalination plant made obvious by Liberman in view of Atia in vies of Roitel with the control based on the tide as taught by Hashimoto because the control would help prevent biofilm formation on the reverse osmosis membrane.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liberman in view of Atia in view of Roitel as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Snyder.
Regarding Claim 37, Assuming applicant positively recited the addition of an ultrafiltration membrane/apparatus to be included upstream of the reverse osmosis membranes, Liberman in view of Atia in view of Roitel does not teach wherein said feed water is ultrafiltrated prior to being fed into said at least one feed water inlet.
However, Snyder teaches that an ultrafiltration system pre-filters raw water before the water is received by a reverse osmosis unit because the reverse osmosis unit requires different levels of pre-treatment based upon the quality of the raw water (i.e., wherein said feed water is ultrafiltrated prior to being fed into said at least one feed water inlet; Paragraphs 0076-0077).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the desalination plant made obvious by Liberman in view of Atia in view of Roitel with the ultrafiltration pre-filter as taught by Snyder because reverse osmosis requires different pre-treatments based on the differing quality of the input raw water.
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein said feed water is ultrafiltrated prior to being fed into said at least one feed water inlet” is directed toward materials or articles worked upon by the claimed invention and is therefore not subject to patentability. The inclusion of material or article 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.
Claim 54 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liberman in view of Atia in view of Roitel in view of Nitto as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Snyder with support from Grundfos.
Regarding Claim 54, Nitto further teaches that it is known not to exceed 10 psi/second at any time for the purpose of preventing damage to the membrane elements (Page 2).
Liberman in view of Atia in view of Roitel in view of Nitto does not teach wherein said at least one high pressure pump increases rotation speed at a maximum rate of 30 RPM per second during said start-up step.
However, Snyder teaches that a pump can be run at a range of speeds from 1800-3600 RPM with a range of liquid flow rates for the purpose of maintaining a specific temperature range for the working fluid (Paragraph 0089).
Furthermore, Snyder describes Grundfos pumps being used (Paragraph 0051) and Grundfos describes reverse osmosis pumps with a rotational speed of up to 5500 min-1 with the pump ramping up from 0 to maximum speed with a linear speed increase and operating between 1700-5500 rpm for variable speed applications (Page 11) in addition to pumps that have a range of speed from 1700-3500 RPM (Pages 20-21).
Liberman in view of Atia in view of Roitel in view of Nitto in view of Snyder with support from Grundfos does not explicitly teach wherein said at least one high pressure pump increases rotation speed at a maximum rate of 30 RPM per second during said start-up step. However, variable-speed controllers are capable of ramping pump speeds at a desired rate within the pump’s operating range and it is known to keep the pump below a speed of 10 psi/second to prevent damage. The desalination plant made obvious by Liberman in view of Atia in view of Roitel in view of Nitto in view of Snyder with support from Grundfos teaches the use of variable speed controlled pumps that run between 1800-3600 rpms and 1700-5500 rpms, which means that the desalination plant is capable of performing the described start-up procedure. 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 “wherein said at least one high pressure pump increases rotation speed at a maximum rate of 30 RPM per second during said start-up step” 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.
Claim 55 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liberman in view of Atia in view of Al-Azazmeh.
Regarding Claim 55, Liberman teaches a pumping apparatus for a desalination plant (i.e., a large scale water desalination plant, comprising; Paragraph 0001) in which the reverse osmosis plant (Fig. 3, #62) receives seawater (i.e., at least one feed water inlet; Fig. 3, #62a) and the pumps (i.e., at least one high pressure pump; Fig. 3, #56) drive the reverse osmosis process (i.e., fluidly coupled with the at least one feed water inlet, the at least one high pressure pump configured to drive feed water through at least one reverse osmosis membrane; Paragraphs 0053-0054) and the pumps are powered by gas turbines and/or steam turbines (i.e., at least one nonelectrical source powering the at least one high pressure pump; Abstract).
Liberman does not teach wherein at least one of the operating pressure of the at least one high pressure pump or the rotation speed of the at least one high pressure pump controlled in response to at least one of feed water condition, a flow of feed water, a volume of feed water, an aging of said at least one reverse osmosis membrane, product water quantity required, daily tidal variations, temperature changes of the feed water, quality of product water required, salinity of the feed water, seasonal temperature changes of the feed water.
However, Atia teaches the use of variable-speed pumps (i.e., wherein at least one of the operating pressure of the at least one high pressure pump or the rotation speed of the at least one high pressure pump controlled) for the maximization of potable water production by actively controlling feedwater salinity (i.e., in response to at least one of salinity of said feed water and product water quantity required) for the purpose of minimizing cost (Paragraph 0014).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the desalination plant as taught by Liberman with the control system as taught by Atia because the control system would minimize costs for desalinating feedwater.
Liberman in view of Atia does not teach wherein an output of the at least one nonelectrical source is set by or altered to control at least one of an operating pressure of the at least one high pressure pump or the rotation speed of the at least one high pressure pump.
However, Al-Azazmeh teaches a plurality of control systems that can adjust temperature and pressure of steam and adjust the output of the steam turbine (Paragraph 0098) and the pump that pressurizes saline water for reverse osmosis is powered by the shaft work of the steam turbine (i.e., wherein an output of the at least one nonelectrical source is set by or altered to control at least one of an operating pressure of the at least one high pressure pump or the rotation speed of the at least one high pressure pump; Paragraph 0028) for the purpose of reducing irreversibly lost energy in the forms, for example, of heat loss to the environment or pressure drop (Paragraph 0100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the desalination plant made obvious by Liberman in view of Atia with the control system as taught by Al-Azazmeh because the control system would reduce the energy lost by the desalination plant.
Claims 56-58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liberman in view of Atia in view of Nitto in view of Snyder with support from Grundfos.
Regarding Claim 56, Liberman teaches a pumping apparatus for a desalination plant (i.e., a large scale water desalination plant, comprising; Paragraph 0001) in which the reverse osmosis plant (Fig. 3, #62) receives seawater (i.e., at least one feed water inlet; Fig. 3, #62a) and the pumps (i.e., at least one high pressure pump fluidly coupled with the at least one feed water inlet; Fig. 3, #56) drive the reverse osmosis process (i.e., the at least one high pressure pump configured to drive feed water through at least one reverse osmosis membrane; Paragraphs 0053-0054) and the pumps are powered by gas turbines and/or steam turbines (i.e., at least one nonelectrical source powering the at least one high pressure pump; Abstract).
Liberman does not teach wherein at least one selected from a group consisting of an operating pressure of said at least one high pressure pump or a rotation speed of said at least one high pressure pump is set or controllable by said at least one nonelectrical source, in response to at least one selected from a group consisting of feed water condition, a flow of the feed water, a volume of the feed water, an aging of the at least one reverse osmosis membrane, product water quantity required, daily tidal variations, temperature changes of the feed water, quality of product water required, salinity of the feed water, or seasonal temperature changes of the feed water or any combination thereof.
However, Atia teaches the use of variable-speed pumps (i.e., wherein at least one selected from a group consisting of the rotation speed of said at least one high pressure pump) for the maximization of potable water production by actively controlling feedwater salinity (i.e., in response to at least one selected from a group consisting of salinity of said feed water and product water quantity required) for the purpose of minimizing cost (Paragraph 0014).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the desalination plant as taught by Liberman with the control system as taught by Atia because the control system would minimize costs for desalinating feedwater.
Liberman in view of Atia does not teach wherein a start-up step comprising increasing a feed pressure applied to said at least one reverse osmosis membrane at a maximum rate of 12 psi per second to slowly increase pressure on the at least one reverse osmosis membrane to a predetermined operational pressure is performed.
However, Nitto teaches that it is known not to exceed 10 psi/second at any time for the purpose of preventing damage to the membrane elements (i.e., wherein a start-up step comprising increasing a feed pressure applied to said at least one reverse osmosis membrane at a maximum rate of 12 psi per second to slowly increase pressure on the at least one reverse osmosis membrane to a predetermined operational pressure is performed; Page 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the desalination plant made obvious by Liberman in view of Atia with the start-up step as taught by Nitto because the start-up step would prevent damage to the membrane elements.
Liberman in view of Atia in view of Nitto does not teach further wherein said increase is characterized by a linear slope of maximum 30 RPM per second during at least partially said start-up step.
However, Snyder teaches that a pump can be run at a range of speeds from 1800-3600 RPM with a range of liquid flow rates for the purpose of maintaining a specific temperature range for the working fluid (Paragraph 0089).
Furthermore, Snyder describes Grundfos pumps being used (Paragraph 0051) and Grundfos describes reverse osmosis pumps with a rotational speed of up to 5500 min-1 with the pump ramping up from 0 to maximum speed with a linear speed increase and operating between 1700-5500 rpm for variable speed applications (Page 11) in addition to pumps that have a range of speed from 1700-3500 RPM (Pages 20-21).
Liberman in view of Atia in view of Nitto in view of Snyder with support from Grundfos does not explicitly teach further wherein said increase is characterized by a linear slope of maximum 30 RPM per second during at least partially said start-up step. However, variable-speed controllers are capable of ramping pump speeds at a desired rate within the pump’s operating range and it is known to keep the pump below a speed of 10 psi/second to prevent damage. The desalination plant made obvious by Liberman in view of Atia in view of Nitto in view of Snyder with support from Grundfos teaches the use of variable speed controlled pumps that run between 1800-3600 rpms and 1700-5500 rpms, which means that the desalination plant is capable of performing the described start-up procedure. 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 “wherein a start-up step comprising increasing a feed pressure applied to said at least one reverse osmosis membrane at a maximum rate of 12 psi per second to slowly increase pressure on the at least one reverse osmosis membrane to a predetermined operational pressure is performed” 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.
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein said at least one high pressure pump increases rotation speed at a maximum rate of 30 RPM per second during said start-up step” 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 57, Snyder further teaches that a pump can be run at a range of speeds from 1800-3600 RPM with a range of liquid flow rates for the purpose of maintaining a specific temperature range for the working fluid (Paragraph 0089).
Furthermore, Snyder describes Grundfos pumps being used (Paragraph 0051) and Grundfos describes reverse osmosis pumps with a rotational speed of up to 5500 min-1 with the pump ramping up from 0 to maximum speed with a linear speed increase and operating between 1700-5500 rpm for variable speed applications (Page 11) in addition to pumps that have a range of speed from 1700-3500 RPM (Pages 20-21).
Liberman in view of Atia in view of Nitto in view of Snyder with support from Grundfos does not explicitly teach wherein said increase is characterized by a linear slope of maximum 30 RPM per second from 0 RPM up to at least 1150 RPM. However, variable-speed controllers are capable of ramping pump speeds at a desired rate within the pump’s operating range and it is known to keep the pump below a speed of 10 psi/second to prevent damage. The desalination plant made obvious by Liberman in view of Atia in view of Nitto in view of Snyder with support from Grundfos teaches the use of variable speed controlled pumps that run between 1800-3600 rpms and 1700-5500 rpms, which means that the desalination plant is capable of performing the described start-up procedure. 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 “wherein said increase is characterized by a linear slope of maximum 30 RPM per second from 0 RPM up to at least 1150 RPM” 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 58, Snyder further teaches that a pump can be run at a range of speeds from 1800-3600 RPM with a range of liquid flow rates for the purpose of maintaining a specific temperature range for the working fluid (Paragraph 0089).
Furthermore, Snyder describes Grundfos pumps being used (Paragraph 0051) and Grundfos describes reverse osmosis pumps with a rotational speed of up to 5500 min-1 with the pump ramping up from 0 to maximum speed with a linear speed increase and operating between 1700-5500 rpm for variable speed applications (Page 11) in addition to pumps that have a range of speed from 1700-3500 RPM (Pages 20-21).
Liberman in view of Atia in view of Nitto in view of Snyder with support from Grundfos does not explicitly teach wherein said increase is characterized by a linear slope of maximum 30 RPM per second from 0 RPM up to maximum 5000 RPM. However, variable-speed controllers are capable of ramping pump speeds at a desired rate within the pump’s operating range and it is known to keep the pump below a speed of 10 psi/second to prevent damage. The desalination plant made obvious by Liberman in view of Atia in view of Nitto in view of Snyder with support from Grundfos teaches the use of variable speed controlled pumps that run between 1800-3600 rpms and 1700-5500 rpms, which means that the desalination plant is capable of performing the described start-up procedure. 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 “wherein said increase is characterized by a linear slope of maximum 30 RPM per second from 0 RPM up to maximum 5000 RPM” 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ADRIEN GERMAIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.A.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/Ryan B Huang/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights