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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/23/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments submitted 12/23/2025 have been fully and carefully considered.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 102, applicant argues 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 Madani teaches sea water 1 withdrawn from sea 99 is provided to series of pretreatments 33/34/35/36, followed by preheating 37a-f, with filtering 38a-f to remove alkaline precipitated salts having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.
Applicant’s amendments have necessitated new grounds of objection and rejection included in this office action, this action will be made Nonfinal.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim concludes with a comma and a period “,.”, and the comma at the end of second to last line should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 33-35, 37-41 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
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