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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-17, in the reply filed on 11/20/2025 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that Sears (the reference relied upon in the Restriction Requirement) fails to teach or suggest several alleged special technical features encompassed by groups I and II, i.e. features a-d as described by Applicant on pages 9-10 of the 11/20/2025 Remarks. This is not found persuasive because Sears teaches and/or suggests all of said features as detailed in the 103 rejection of claim 1 below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “high pressure and temperature” in lines 17-18. The scope of “high pressure and temperature” is unclear as it is not clear where the line is drawn between pressures and temperature which are “high” and those which are not.
With regard to claim 1: In line 18, “an upper inlet” should be replaced with --the upper inlet--.
Claims 2-17 are rejected due to their dependency on indefinite claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the droplet separator" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the stack of frames" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the membrane" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Note: There is sufficient antecedent basis for --the membranes-- but not for “the membrane”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the polymeric sheet" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites “wherein at least two evaporation- condensation units are arranged in series with a mechanical vapor recompressor (8) forming a multi-effect system for evaporation and condensation.”
It is unclear if the at least two evaporation-condensation units are related in any way to the at least one evaporation-condensation unit outlined in claim 1.
Presumably, it is Applicant’s intent that the at least one evaporation-condensation unit of claim 1 be at least two evaporation-condensation units in the context of claim 15.
Applicant should amend claim 15 to clarify as appropriate.
Claim 15 recites “wherein at least two evaporation- condensation units are arranged in series with a mechanical vapor recompressor (8) forming a multi-effect system for evaporation and condensation.”
It is unclear if the mechanical vapor recompressor recited in line 2 is related any way to the mechanical vapor recompressor outlined in claim 1.
Presumably, it is Applicant’s intent that the at least one mechanical vapor recompressor of claim 15 be the same as that recited in claim 1.
Applicant should amend claim 15 to clarify as appropriate.
Claim 16 recites “wherein at least two evaporation- condensation units are integrally mounted in series within a sealed unit forming a multi-effect system for evaporation and condensation.”
It is unclear if the at least two evaporation-condensation units are related in any way to the at least one evaporation-condensation unit outlined in claim 1.
Presumably, it is Applicant’s intent that the at least one evaporation-condensation unit of claim 1 be at least two evaporation-condensation units in the context of claim 15.
Applicant should amend claim 16 to clarify as appropriate.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the multi-effect system" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the flow of condensate.. and feed" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 11, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sears (US 4,769,113).
With regard to claim 1: Sears teaches a system for evaporation and condensation (abstract, Figures 1-3), the system comprising:
At least one evaporation-condensation unit (core) 12 comprising a plurality of frames arranged in a series of stacks, each stack comprises an evaporation frame (boiling chamber) 33 and a condensation frame (condensing chamber) 36 separated by a sheet from the evaporation frame 33 (Figures 1-3, columns 14-16).
The evaporation-condensation unit 12 is a “sealed unit” at least in that it comprises a seal 42 that holds the water and steam inside the system (Figures 1-3, columns 14-16, especially Column 16-Lines 20-32).
The evaporation-condensation unit 12 is a “partially flooded unit” in that, in operation, it holds water within itself (e.g. feed water, condensed steam/distilled water, and blowdown) and thus, is partially flooded by said water (Figures 1-3, columns 14-16, especially Column 16). In the unlikely alternative, the evaporation-condensation unit 12 is at least capable of holding water within itself and thus being partially flooded (Figures 1-3, columns 14-16, especially Column 16), thereby satisfying the claim language to the evaporation-condensation unit 12 being a “partially flooded unit” (see MPEP 2114 for guidance).
Because, the evaporation-condensation unit 12 is a “sealed unit” and a “partially flooded unit” as discussed above, said at least one evaporation-condensation unit 12 is a “partially flooded sealed unit” (Figures 1-3, columns 14-16, especially Column 16-Lines 20-32).
The at least one evaporation-condensation unit 12 comprises a lower inlet (feed inlet hose) 22, a vapor outlet (compressor manifold) 47, a concentrate outlet (blowdown outlet hose) 19, an upper inlet (second compressor manifold) 48, and a distillate outlet (product outlet hose) 21 (Figures 1-3, columns 14-16); and wherein the unit receives a feed at the lower inlet 22 and a part of the feed partially evaporates at the evaporation frame and generates vapor (Figures 1-3, columns 14-16).
The system of Sears further comprises a mechanical vapor recompressor 16 mounted outside the at least one evaporation-condensation unit 12 receiving the generated vapor from the at least one evaporation-condensation unit 12 at the vapor outlet 47 for compressing the vapor, wherein the vapor is compressed at (by) the mechanical vapor recompressor 16 and the compressed vapor is feed back to evaporation-condensation unit at a high pressure and temperature at an upper inlet the upper inlet 48 and passed to the condensation frames 36 for condensation (Figures 1-3, columns 14-16, especially Column 6 Lines 32-52).
The plurality of frames are detachably integrated within the at least one evaporation-condensation unit 12, i.e. the frames are bolted together and therefore can be detached from one another and the least one evaporation-condensation unit 12 by removing the bolts (Figures 1-3, column 17, especially Column 17 lines 5-21).
Sears does not explicitly teach that the sheets separating the evaporation frames and condensation frames are polymer sheets.
However, Sears at least suggests an embodiment wherein the sheets are formed from polymeric material (i.e. plastic) (Column 10 Lines 42-51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Sears in view of Sears own suggestions by configuring the sheets to be polymeric sheets, in order to obtain a predictably functional invention which is consistent with Sears’ own suggestions.
In modified Sears, each of the frames is made at least partially of polymer material, i.e. the polymeric sheets are partially responsible for forming each frame. Therefore, in modified Sears, each frame is made of a polymeric material in that it comprises at least some polymeric components.
With regard to claims 2-5: The system of modified Sears further comprises a plurality of heat exchangers, i.e. the various portion of the “heat exchanger” 11 and supplemental heater 23, said plurality of heat exchangers coupled with the at least one evaporation condensation unit 12 (Figures 1 and 4, Column 14 Lines 4-25 and 48-59, Column 14 Line 60-Column 15 Line 20, Columns 21 and 22).
Wherein the plurality of heat exchangers comprises:
A first heat exchanger comprised of sheets 73 and 74 and mounted in fluid communication with the concentrate outlet 19 and configured for heating the feed by transferring heat from the concentrate (Figures 1 and 4, Column 14 Lines 4-25 and 48-59, Columns 21 and 22, especially Column 21 Line 65-Column 22 Line 10).
A second heat exchanger comprised of sheet 76 and sheet 74 and/or sheet 77 mounted in fluid communication with the distillate outlet 21 and configured for heating the feed by transferring heat from the distillate (Figures 1 and 4, Column 14 Lines 4-25 and 48-59, Columns 21 and 22, especially Column 21 Line 65-Column 22 Line 10). And a third heat exchanger (supplemental heater) 23 mounted in fluid communication with the lower inlet 22 for heating the feed during a startup phase (Figure 1, Column 14 Line 60-Column 15 Line 20).
With regard to claim 11: The series of stacks is arranged in a repeated pattern (Figures 1-3, Column 14 Lines 35-43).
With regard to claim 12: The series of stacks is arranged in a pattern (Figures 1-3, Column 14 Lines 35-43). This pattern can be fairly described as an “alternative pattern” as said pattern is necessarily an alternative to some other pattern.
With regard to claim 14: Modified Sears is silent to the polymer sheet having a thickness ranging from 10 to 40 µm.
However, Sears does teach that the sheets should be 0.025-0.51 mm (in thickness 25-510 µm). (Column 15 Lines 20-40). The taught range overlaps the claimed range. “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the thickness of the sheets is a result effective variable, as is clearly evident from the teachings of Sears (Column 15 Lines 20-40). "[When] the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Sears by optimizing the thickness of the polymer sheets, such that said sheets had a thickness in the range of 10 to 40 µm, in order to obtain a predictably functional evaporation- condensation unit.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sears as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 10,118,835), hereafter referred to as Lee, and Yang et al. (US 11,248,853), hereafter referred to as Yang.
With regard to claims 6 and 7: Modified Sears, in the context of the embodiment relied upon, is silent to a droplet separator detachably attached to the at least one evaporation-condensation unit, wherein the droplet separator is configured to receive vapor from the evaporation-condensation unit.
However, it is notoriously well known in the art to provide evaporator systems with droplet separators attached upstream of a compressor and downstream of an evaporator and configured to receive vapor from the evaporator before said vapor is fed to the compressor. For example, Lee teaches an evaporator having a droplet separator (demister) 118 arranged as such (Figure 4, Column 15 Lines 40-50). This arrangement is understood to carry several benefits. Namely, said arrangement facilitates removal entrained droplets from the vapor thereby preventing said droplets from entering and damaging the compressor and/or contaminating a distillate upon condensation of the vapor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Sears in view of Lee by adding a droplet separator attached to the at least one evaporation-condensation unit, wherein the droplet separator is configured to receive vapor from the evaporation-condensation unit prior to said vapor reaching the mechanical vapor recompressor in order to obtain an evaporation system which removes entrained droplets from the vapor thereby preventing said droplets from entering and damaging the mechanical vapor compressor and/or contaminating the distillate upon condensation of the vapor.
As for the droplet separator being detachable from the at least one evaporation-condensation unit, the device of Sears is highly modular, in that each of the evaporation and condensation frames are detachable from one another (Sears: Figures 1-3, column 17, especially Column 17 lines 5-21, see rejection of claim 1 above for further details). Furthermore, the mechanical vapor recompressor of Sears is detachable from the frames in the same way are detachable from one another (Sears: Figures 1-3, column 17, especially Column 17 lines 5-21). With this in mind, a person having ordinary skill in the art would find it desirable to configure the droplet separator of modified Sears (i.e. modified in view of Lee as described above) so as to be detachable from the at least one evaporation-condensation unit in order to maintain the modular nature of Sears’ system.
Detachable droplet separators are known in the art. For example, Yang teaches an evaporator system having a droplet separator (gas-liquid separator) 130 attached to an evaporator (vaporizer) 110 (Figures 3-5, Columns 3-5), wherein the droplet separator 130 is detachably attached to the evaporator thereby allowing for easy access to individual components in need of maintenance (Figure 5, Column 5 Lines 20-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Sears in view of Yang by configuring the droplet separator to be detachable from the at least one evaporation-condensation unit, in order to maintain the module nature of Sears’ system, and in order to obtain a system wherein the droplet separator and the evaporation-condensation unit can be removed from one another for the purposes of maintenance.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sears in view of Lee and Yang as applied to claims 6 and 7 above, and further in view of Borgmann et al. (US 11,857,928), hereafter referred to as Borgmann.
With regard to claims 8 and 9: Modified Sears is silent to the droplet separator comprising a stack of frames separated by membranes, wherein the stack of frames comprised droplet separation frames.
Borgmann teaches an evaporation system (abstract), the system comprising a droplet separator (droplet elimination device) 320’’ comprised of a stack of frames separated by membranes, wherein the stack of frames comprise droplet separation frames (Figure 13, Column 38 Line 54-Column 39 Line 11). When the droplet separator 320’’ is configured as such, it can be provided in a compact arrangement (Column 38 Line 54-Column 39 Line 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Sears in view of Borgmann by configuring the droplet separator as a stack of frames separated by membranes, wherein the stack of frames comprised droplet separation frames, in order to obtain a system wherein the droplet separator can be provided in a compact manner.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sears in view of Lee, Yang, and Borgmann as applied to claims 8 and 9 above, and further in view of Gore et al. (US 4,545,862), hereafter referred to as Gore.
With regard to claim 10: Modified Sears is silent to the membrane being a microporous hydrophobic membrane.
However, Borgmann teaches that the membrane in the droplet separator is a “steam-permeable, liquid-tight membrane wall” (Column 6 Line 25-46, especially lines 40-41). Considering that the liquid in Borgmann is water (see column 37 Lines 42-55, for example), the teaching that the droplet separator membrane is “steam-permeable” but “liquid-tight” indicates that said membrane is hydrophobic so as to allow water vapor to pass through pores in the membrane while also repelling liquid water.
Furthermore, use of hydrophobic membranes for separation of liquid water from water vapor is notoriously well-known in the art. For example, Gore teach the use of a hydrophobic microporous membrane for separating liquid water from water vapor in the context of membrane distillation (abstract, Column 2 Line 65-Column 3 Line 20)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Sears in view of Borgmann and Gore by configuring the membrane to be a microporous hydrophobic membrane, in order to obtain a system wherein the droplet separator (i.e. the membrane thereof) is capable of separating entrained water droplets from water vapor as would be desired of said droplet separator.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sears as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hartig (EP 0034920).
With regard to claim 13: Modified Sears is silent to the polymer sheet is made of materials selected from Polypropylene (PP), Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or Polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF).
Hartig teaches that polypropylene, polyvinyl chloride, and polyvinylidene fluoride are all suitable materails for forming heat exchange elements in evaporator systems due to having sufficient mechanical strength and resistance to corrosion and hydrolysis (page 12 Lines 10-25). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use has been found to support a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Sears in view of Hartig by forming the polymer sheets from Polypropylene (PP), Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or Polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), in order to obtain a predictably functional system which has sufficient mechanical strength as well as resistance to corrosion and hydrolysis.
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sears as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Goodman (US 3,155,565) and Chandan et al. (WO 2016/135593), hereafter referred to as Chandan.
With regard to claims 15 and 16: Modified Sears is silent to the at least one evaporation-condensation unit being at least two evaporation-condensation units that are integrally mounted in series within a sealed unit to form a multi-effect system for evaporation and condensation.
Goodman teaches an evaporation-condensation unit comprised of multiple frames separated by multiple sheets (Figures 1-8, Columns 1-4). Goodman illustrates a single-effect evaporator, teaches that “As will be well understood by those versed in the art, units such as described can be combined to form a multiple effect evaporator, the vapour formed in one effect after separation from the partially concentrated liquid being taken to the heating passages of other effects, whereby economy in heating is made possible,” (Column 4 Lines 57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Sears in view of Goodman by mounting a plurality (at least two) of Sears’ evaporation-condensation units in serries to form a multi-effect system for evaporation and condensation, in order to achieve economy in heating.
As for the compressor being arranged in series with the plurality of evaporation-condensation units, it is known in the art to mount compressors in such an arrangement within multi-effect evaporating systems in order to recycle energy from a final effect to a first effect. For example, such an arrangement is taught by Chandan (Figure 1, paragraphs [0030], [0035], [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Sears in view of Chandan by arranging the mechanical vapor recompressor in serries with the plurality of plurality of evaporation-condensation units in order to recycle energy from a final one of the evaporation-condensation units, representing a final effect of the multi-effect system, to a first one of the evaporation-condensation units.
As for the units being mounted “integrally” and “within a sealed unit”, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that such mounting is:
i) possible, because an evaporation-condensation unit of Sears can be integrally with an adjacent unit to form a single, integral stack of frames and sheets in the same way that the sheets and frames of a single evaporation-condensation unit can be connected to form a single, integral stack of frames and sheets, and because such an integral stack of frames and sheets would represent a sealed unit in the same way that a single evaporation-condensation unit represents a sealed unit; and
ii) advantageous, as it would make the multi-effect system more compact than it would be otherwise.
Furthermore, integral mounting of effects within a single sealed units is known in the art, as is evidenced by Chandan (Figure 1, paragraphs [0025]-[0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Sears in view of Chandan by mounting said plurality (at least two) of Sears evaporation-condensation units such that they are mounted integrally” and within a sealed unit, i.e. as a sealed unit, in order to obtain a multi-effect system more that is compact than it would be otherwise.
With regard to claim 17: As for a plurality of orifices enabling the flow of condensate and feed respectively from one evaporation-condensation unit to another evaporation-condensation unit, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that such orifices would be required for the multiple effect system to function properly.
In the course of making the modification proposed in the rejection of claim 16 above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Sears in view of Goodman by adding a plurality of orifices enabling the flow of condensate and feed respectively from one evaporation-condensation unit to another evaporation-condensation unit, as would be necessary to obtain a multiple effect system which is actually functional.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN "LUKE" PILCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-2691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 5712725954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN LUKE PILCHER/Examiner, Art Unit 1772