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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/15/2026 with reference to US Patent Number “109672327” has 9 digits and does not correspond to an existing US Patent Number, applicant must re-submit and IDS with the proper US Patent number, the reference has not been considered.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 26-29, 33-35, 37-41 and 48-54 are allowable. Claim 36, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, comprises all the limitations of an allowable claim. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the restriction requirement between inventions Selection II, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 9/18/24, is hereby withdrawn and claim 36 is hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments submitted 7/15/2026 have been fully and carefully considered.
The claim objection is withdrawn in view of applicant’s arguments and amendment on 7/15/26.
Regarding claim 26, applicant previously argued (see arguments 12/23/25) that the claims, as amended fails to teach or fairly suggest all limitations, specifically Madani (US 5,346,592), which is regarded as the closest relevant prior art, fails to teach a demineralization process for preparing a salt slush using brine water, wherein the demineralization process comprises: obtaining flue gas from a flue gas source, passing said flue gas through a flue gas cooler such that the temperature of said flue gas after exiting said flue gas cooler is lower than the temperature of said flue gas before entering said flue gas cooler, passing the lower temperature flue gas to a spray dryer, mixing the lower temperature flue gas with heated brine water, spraying said mixture in a drying chamber, where a salt slush is collected as claimed, is found persuasive. Madani teaches sea water 1 withdrawn from sea 99 is provided to series of pretreatments 33/34/35/36, followed by preheating 37a-f, with filtering 38a-f to remove alkaline precipitated salts having inverse solubilities 38 such as Magnesium Hydroxide, Magnesium Chloride, and Calcium Carbonate (see Fig 1, C3:L52-C4:L44), the heated dilute salt water 5, leaving last preheater is now salt water 6, which is provided to multi stage evaporators 40a-e that progressively evaporates more water from the salt water (see C4:L52-C5:L14), associated with each evaporator are filters 41a-41e, to remove precipitated salts 50 that are calcium sulfate salts (see Fig 1, C5:L64-C6:L1), leaving brine 8 delivered to salt recovery tank 49 that receives flue gas 51 to further evaporate water from brine 8 leading to NaCl total salt recovery 13, therefore preventing the brine from being rejected to the environment (i.e. zero liquid discharge, See Fig 1, C6:L1-12). Madani does not teach the claimed flue gas obtaining, passing through flue gas cooler step as claimed, thereby utilizing a lower temperature flue gas for the spray drying process, which would result in a salt slush.
Regarding the obviousness-type double patenting rejections, applicant has indicated that they filed a Terminal Disclaimer, however there is not approved Terminal Disclaimer of record, therefore the rejections are made Final.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 26-29, 33-41 and 48-54 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,667,544. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘544 are substantially overlapping, claiming the same method steps, however the claims of the ‘544 patent do not specifically claim the salt slush recovered, however upon executing the steps of the process, absent a claimed difference in the process, the expected result would be the claimed salt slush and to measure and determine the composition would be routine without unexpected results.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1603. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 - 5.
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 on (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.
/JONATHAN MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights