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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed December 8th, 2025 has been entered. Examiner acknowledges the cancellation of claims 6, 13 and 16 and the addition of new claims 20-22. Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-15 and 17-22 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each of the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed September 18th, 2025. Therefore, these 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 8th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art fails to disclose or suggest “a chemical treatment subsystem in fluid communication with an effluent line of the microwave reactor configured to inject one or more of a corrosion inhibitor, an oxidizing biocide, a non-oxidizing biocide, and a scale inhibitor,” and asserts that the cited references add chemicals to feedwater rather than to recovered water. However, Heins et al. (US7150320 and US8603301) disclose boiler water treatment systems in which chemical additives, including scale inhibitors and other conditioning chemicals, are introduced in connection with treated boiler water streams. Boiler systems routinely require corrosion inhibitors, scale inhibitors, and biocides to prevent corrosion, scaling and biological growth. The rejection does not rely on Heins for disclosing a microwave reactor; that feature is supplied by Isom (US20040035533) which teaches microwave evaporation to produce treated water. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate known boiler water conditioning practices, including injection of corrosion inhibitors, scale inhibitors, and/or biocides, into the treated water stream of the combined Heins/Isom system prior to reuse in the boiler system. The positioning of chemical injection in fluid communication with the treated effluent line represents a predictable implementation choice within the ordinary skill in the art, as chemical dosing in boiler systems may be performed at various locations depending on system design. Applicant’s argument that Heins discloses chemical addition in a different specific location does not overcome the rejection, as relocating a known chemical injection point within a boiler water treatment system constitutes a routine design choice absent evidence of unexpected results. Accordingly claim 1 remains unpatentable over Heins in view of Isom.
Applicant argues that the specification supports selecting chemical treatment additives based on a type of reuse of the recovered blowdown water, citing paragraph [0021], which discloses examples including closed-loop cooling, fire and utility system water, and open-loop cooling medium. However, while paragraph [0021] provides specific examples of reuse types and corresponding chemical treatments, the claims are not limited to these disclosed reuse categories. Instead claims 8 and 19 broadly recite adding a chemical treatment additive “based on a type of reuse”, which encompasses any possible reuse of recovered water. The specification provides support for selecting chemical treatment additives based on the specifically enumerated reuse types in the context of boiler and cooling system applications. However, the specification does not describe or otherwise reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor was in possession of the broader genus of selecting chemical additives based on any type of reuse. Accordingly, claims 8 and 19 are broader than the written description support provided in the originally filed specification and therefore fail to comply with 35 U.S.C. §112(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 8-12, 14-15 and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 8 and 19, these claims recite, in relevant part: “adding a chemical treatment additive to the recovered water based on a type of reuse of the recovered blowdown water.” The specification discloses that the chemical treatment subsystem may be dependent on the type of reuse of the recovered blowdown water, and provides specific examples of reuse including closed-loop cooling medium, fire and utility system water, and open-loop cooling medium (par. [0021]). However, the claims are not limited to these disclosed reuse types and instead broadly recite “a type of reuse” which encompasses any possible reuse of recovered water. The specification does not describe or otherwise reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the full scope of reuse types now encompassed by the claims. The specification does not describe: additional reuse classifications beyond those listed, any generalized framework for categorizing reuse types beyond the enumerated examples, or chemical selection strategies applicable to reuse types outside the disclosed cooling and fire/utility contexts. Because the specification does not demonstrate possession of the broader genus or selecting chemical treatment additives based on any type of reuse as now claimed, claims 8 and 19 are broader than the written description support provided in the originally filed written disclosure and fail to comply with 35 U.S.C. §112(a). Claims 9-12, 14-15, 17-18 and 20-22 are rejected due to their dependency upon claim 8.
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 1-5, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heins '301 (US-8603301-B2) in view of Heins '320 (US-7150320-B2), and further in view of Isom (US-20040035533-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Heins ’301 discloses a system for treating blowdown water derived from one or more boilers (Heins '301 abstract and col. 4 lines 42-47), comprising: an evaporator configured to receive the blowdown water (Heins col. 5 lines 21-30 “evaporator” #154); a cooler in fluid communication with the evaporator (Heins col. 5 lines 31-45 “condenser” #168); and a chemical treatment subsystem in fluid communication with an effluent line configured to inject (Heins '301 col. 4 line 52 “pump” #122 is in fluid communication through evaporator feed tank #110 with effluent line #106 coming from “blowdown” not shown in Fig. 1) one or more of a corrosion inhibitor, an oxidizing biocide, a non-oxidizing biocide, and a scale inhibitor (Heins '301 col. 4 line 51).
Heins ‘301 does not disclose that the evaporator is a microwave reactor. Heins ‘301 also does not disclose a filter in fluid communication with the cooler. Heins ‘301 also does not disclose that the chemical treatment subsystem is in fluid communication with an effluent line of the microwave reactor.
Heins '320 discloses a system for treating blowdown water derived from one or more boilers (Heins '320 claim 11), comprising: an evaporator configured to receive the blowdown water (Heins '320 Fig. 4 illustrates evaporator 140 is configured to receive blowdown water 110); a cooler in fluid communication with the evaporator (Heins '320 Fig. 4 shows "heat exchanger'' 200 or 200' in fluid communication with evaporator 140); and a filter in fluid communication with the cooler (Heins '320 show ion exchange system 202 in fluid communication with the heat exchanger).
Isom teaches using a microwave evaporator to vaporize liquid (Isom abstract), obtaining a higher purity in the vapor phase (Isom par. [0016]) while increasing concentration of impurities in the compressed liquid phase (Isom par. [0029]). Isom teaches the benefits of using microwave energy as a source of heat includes rapid response to rapid heat of vaporization energy replacement, absence of particulate contamination and efficient energy use because microwave energy sources are very efficient for heating polar substances.
While Isom is not in the same field of Endeavor as Heins '301, Isom is reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by Heins. Heins is concerned with evaporating other otherwise treating hot liquid effluent streams (blowdown) while minimizing carryover of impurities. Isom teaches controlled evaporation of liquids using microwave energy at or below the boiling point to limit agitation and thereby reduce the entrainment of impurities into the vapor phase (Isom par. [0011-0016]). Isom also discloses that microwave heating is efficient, provides rapid response, and avoids contamination by eliminating direct contact between the liquid and a heating surface (Isom par. [0020-0022]). Accordingly, even though Isom arises from a different industry (semiconductor gas purification), it's teachings are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced in Heins, namely, how to evaporate blowdown water while minimizing impurity carryover and improving purity of the recovered fluid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute the heating source in the evaporator systems of Heins '301 and Heins '320 with microwave heating as taught by Isom. Both conventional heating and microwave heating perform the same function of evaporating liquid water to generate vapor, and Isom expressly teaches the advantages of microwave energy for efficient and selective evaporation. The substitution represents nothing more than the predictable use of a known technique (microwave heating) to improve a similar device, yielding the expected result of vapor generation and subsequent condensation to distillate. Furthermore, as Heins '320 teaches, it would have been obvious to polish the condensed distillate with ion exchange to remove trace silica and impurities, a well-known and routine step in boiler water treatment. Further, it would have been obvious to include the chemical treatment subsystem configured to inject corrosion inhibitors, scale inhibitors, and/or biocides into the treated water stream as such chemical conditioning is a routine and conventional aspect of boiler water treatment used to prevent corrosion, scaling and microbial growth. The specific positioning of the chemical injection in fluid communication with the treated effluent line represents a predictable design choice within the ordinary skill of the art, as chemical dosing may be performed at various locations within a water treatment system depending on system configuration. The combination of references therefore teaches or suggests each and every element of the claimed system, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Heins ‘301, Heins ‘320 and Isom discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the system is in continuous fluid communication with the boiler (Heins ‘320 Fig. 4 illustrates the continuous fluid communication with the boiler 80).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Heins ‘301, Heins ‘320 and Isom discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the cooler is a blowdown cooler (Heins ‘320 “heat exchanger” functions as a blowdown cooler by removing excess heat from blowdown water).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Heins ‘301, Heins ‘320 and Isom discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the filter is an ion exchange filter (Heins ‘320 col. 8 lines 26-27 “ion exchange system”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Heins ‘301, Heins ‘320 and Isom discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a blowdown separator configured to receive the blowdown water from the one or more boilers, wherein the microwave reactor is configured to receive the blowdown water from the blowdown separator (Heins ‘320 col. 6 line 50-54 discloses in some instances a separator is configured to receive the blowdown water from a packaged boiler (rather than the once through steam generator 12 of Fig. 5) and then it is delivered from the separator back to the system and the microwave reactor suggested by Isom).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Heins ‘301, Heins ‘320 and Isom discloses a method for treating water (Heins ‘301 col. 4 line 43) using microwave radiation (Isom abstract), comprising: receiving blowdown water from one or more boilers (Heins ‘320 claim 11), wherein the blowdown water comprises an impurity (Heins ‘320 claim 1 describes various impurities such as silica); exposing the blowdown to microwave radiation to produce a vapor (Heins ‘320 claim 11 exposes blowdown to an evaporator which is microwave radiation by suggestion of Isom); cooling the vapor to produce microwaved water (Heins ‘301 abstract “high purity distillate stream” by suggestion of Isom is microwaved water); and filtering the microwaved water to produce recovered water, wherein the recovered water comprises a reduced amount of the impurity relative to the blowdown water (Heins ‘320 claim 2-6); and adding a chemical treatment additive to the recovered water based on a type of reuse of the recovered blowdown water (Heins '301 col. 4 line 51 indicates adding scale inhibitor, which a person of ordinary skill would choose based on the intended use of the water).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Heins ‘301, Heins ‘320 and Isom discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the exposing precipitates a portion of the impurity (Heins ‘320 claim 22).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Heins ‘301, Heins ‘320 and Isom discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the filtering removes a portion of the impurity (Heins ‘320 claim 2-6).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Heins ‘301, Heins ‘320 and Isom discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the receiving is continuous (Heins ‘320 describes throughout as well as the illustration of Figs 4-5 demonstrate that receiving is performed continuously as more feed enters the feed tank from both the boiler and the oil/water mixture).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Heins ‘301, Heins ‘320 and Isom discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising reusing the recovered water (Both Heins ‘301 and Heins ‘320 reuse the boiler feed Fig. 4-5).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Heins ‘301, Heins ‘320 and Isom discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the reusing comprising recycling the recovered water to at least one of the oil or more boilers (Heins ‘320 Fig. 4 illustrates the recycled recovered water is sent to the boiler 80).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Heins ‘301, Heins ‘320 and Isom discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the impurity is selected from the group consisting of an iron salts, ionic silica, a phosphate scale inhibitor, a polymeric conditioner, a bacteria, and combinations thereof (Heins ‘320 claim 1 “silica” and col. 5 lines 59-63 “soluble silica species” indicates ionic silica).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heins '301 (US-8603301-B2) in view of Heins '320 (US-7150320-B2) and further in view of Isom (US-20040035533-A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Arndt (US-9242874-B1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Heins ‘301, Heins ‘320 and Isom discloses The method of claim 8.
Neither Heins ‘301, Heins ‘320 or Isom disclose wherein the exposing destroys bacteria in the impurity.
Arndt explicitly teaches that microwave irradiation kills bacteria, fungi, parasites, and viruses in flowing water with high efficacy (Arndt abstract).
Heins discloses the base system of evaporation/condensation blowdown recovery while Isom provides motivation to substitute microwave heating for conventional heating in the evaporators, as it is known to evaporate polar liquids like water and generate purified vapor. Arndt confirms knowledge that microwaves are also capable of killing bacteria in water, thus a person of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that using a microwave in the evaporator inherently provides bacterial kill as an added benefit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings if Arndt with the method of Heins ‘301, Heins ‘320 and Isom because the art already teaches that microwave evaporation of blowdown provides purification, and bacterial destruction in water microwaves. Therefore a person of ordinary skill could reasonably expect the latter benefit to occur when the microwave evaporation is applied to blowdown.
Claims 7, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heins '301 (US-8603301-B2) in view of Heins '320 (US-7150320-B2) and Isom (US-20040035533-A1) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Schroeder (US-8381770-B2).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Heins ‘301, Heins ‘320 and Isom discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more boilers comprise one or more combustion boilers (Heins ‘320 col. 6 last par. describes the packaged boiler is a combustion boiler).
Neither Heins ‘301, Heins ‘320 nor Isom disclose that one or more of the boilers is one or more heat recovery steam generators.
Schroeder teaches blowoff tanks receiving a blowdown and drain water from an HRSG or other type of boiler (Schroeder abstract). Schroeder disclose that heat recovery steam generators (HRSGs) extract the heat from the gases to produce steam demonstrating that heat recovery steam generators are well known within the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Schroeder with those of Heins ‘301, Heins ‘320 and Isom. Schroeder teaches a blowoff tank for receiving HRSG or boiler blowdown, blowoff, and drain water, configured with inlet piping, drain lines, and a cooling water injection line for reducing the effluent temperature prior to discharge. Schroeder therefore provides explicit disclosure of cooling and handling arrangements for HRSG blowdown streams and the combination would have yielded no more than predictable results.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Heins ‘301, Heins ‘320 and Isom and further in view of Schroeder discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the one or more boilers comprise one or more combustion boilers (Heins ‘320 col. 6 last par. describes the packaged boiler is a combustion boiler) and one or more heat recovery steam generators (Schroeder claim 8).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Heins ‘301, Heins ‘320 and Isom and further in view of Schroeder discloses a method for treating water (Heins ‘301 col. 4 line 43) using microwave radiation (by suggestion of Isom abstract), comprising: continuously removing blowdown water from a boiler system (Heins ‘320 discloses removing and recycling boiler blowdown to evaporator feed illustrated by Fig. 4) comprising one or more combustion boilers (Heins ‘320 col. 6 last par. describes the packaged boiler is a combustion boiler) and one or more heat recovery steam generators (Schroeder claim 8), wherein the blowdown water comprises impurities selected from the group consisting of iron salts, ionic silica, a phosphate scale inhibitor, a polymeric conditioner, bacteria, and combinations thereof (Heins ‘320 claim 1 “silica” and col. 5 lines 59-63 “soluble silica species” indicates ionic silica); exposing the blowdown water in a microwave reactor to microwave radiation to precipitate a portion of the impurities and produce a vapor (Heins ‘320 claim 11 exposes blowdown to an evaporator which is microwave radiation by suggestion of Isom); cooling the vapor in blowdown cooler to produce microwaved water (Heins ‘301 abstract “high purity distillate stream” by suggestion of Isom is microwaved water); and filtering the microwaved water in an ion exchange filter to filter another portion of the impurities and produce recovered water, wherein the recovered water comprises a reduced amount of the impurities (Heins ‘320 claim 2-6); storing the recovered water (Heins ‘320 col. 8 line 33-34); adding to the recovered water one or more of a corrosion inhibitor, an oxidizing biocide, a non-oxidizing biocide, and a scale inhibitor (Heins ‘301 col. 4 line 51) based on a type of reuse of the recovered blowdown water (Heins '301 col. 4 line 51 indicates adding scale inhibitor, which a person of ordinary skill would choose based on the intended use of the water); and recycling the recovered water to the boiler system (Heins ‘320 col. 8 lines 39-40).
Claims 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heins '301 (US-8603301-B2) in view of Heins '320 (US-7150320-B2) and Isom (US-20040035533-A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Chen (US-20210371988-A1).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Heins ‘301, Heins ‘320 and Isom discloses the method of claim 8.
Neither Heins ‘301, Heins ‘320 nor Isom disclose wherein the chemical treatment additive added to the recovered water is a corrosion inhibitor when the type of reuse is for a closed loop cooling medium.
Chen discloses industrial water treatment systems in which corrosion inhibitors are used in closed loop cooling systems to mitigate corrosion of system components (Chen par. [0028-29]. The reference teaches that closed loop cooling systems require corrosion control chemistry appropriate for recirculating systems to prevent degradation of piping and heat exchangers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the well-known practice of adding corrosion inhibitors to closed loop cooling systems, as taught by Chen, to the treated water produced by the Heins/Isom system when that treated water is intended for reuse in a closed loop cooling medium. Closed loop cooling systems are known to require corrosion inhibition due to continuous recirculation and metal exposure providing motivation to do so.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Heins ‘301, Heins ‘320 and Isom in further view of Chen discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the chemical treatment additive added to the recovered water is one or more of scale inhibitor, non-oxidizing biocide and corrosion inhibitor when the type of reuse is for an open loop cooling medium (Chen par. [0083] “open loop…cooling water systems”).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heins '301 (US-8603301-B2) in view of Heins '320 (US-7150320-B2) and Isom (US-20040035533-A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Su (CN208345953U: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Heins ‘301, Heins ‘320 and Isom discloses the method of claim 8.
Neither Heins ‘301, Heins ‘320 nor Isom disclose wherein the chemical treatment additive added to the recovered water is an oxidizing biocide when the type of reuse is for fire and utility system water.
Su discloses an online circulating water treatment system that includes a dosing system configured to add various treatment chemicals, including an oxidizing biocide (Su claim 6 “bactericide”). Su further teaches that the circulating water system monitors parameters such as oxidation-reduction potential and automatically adds oxidizing biocide “bactericide” to control microbial growth in recirculating water systems (Su p. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the well-known practice of adding oxidizing biocides to recirculating utility water systems, as taught by Su, to the recovered water produced by the Heins/Isom system when such recovered water is intended for reuse in fire or utility water systems. Fire and utility water systems are known to be susceptible to microbial growth, biofouling, and biological contamination. Oxidizing biocides, such as chlorine-based agents, are conventionally used in industrial and utility water systems to control microbial growth. Incorporating such conventional oxidizing biocide treatment into the recovered water prior to reuse represents the application of established water treatment practices to a known reuse context achieving predictable results.
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 WILLIAM ADDISON GEISBERT whose telephone number is (703)756-5497. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00 EDT.
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, Bobby RAMDHANIE can be reached at (571)270-3240. 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.
/W.A.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/PATRICK ORME/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779