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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-18 are pending:
Claims 1-17 have been withdrawn.
Claims 18-20 are rejected.
Response to Amendments
Amendments filed 05/11/2026 have been entered. Amendments to the claims overcome §112 and §103 rejections as previously set forth in non-final Office Action mailed 02/11/2026.
Amendments to the claims have been necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed 05/11/2026 have been entered. Arguments were fully considered.
On pgs. 13-19 of Applicant arguments, Applicant argues that:
Applicant respectfully disagrees and asserts that persons of ordinary skill seeking to recover and produce purified water from wastewater, would not be motivated to apply the teachings of Folk, based on Folk's description of the original problem to be addressed and the several of the suggested features of the method and apparatus, as follows.
Folk discloses a method and apparatus for processing and drying a feed material containing wet solids, by reducing the size of the wet solids (see, e.g., paragraphs [0081]-[0082]), then tumbling the wet solids in a rotatable main tube (50) while also heating the wet solids by induction heating with induction heater coils (70) applied to the main tube (50) (see, e.g., paragraphs [0071]-[0075], [0089]-[0091], and [0108]).
In paragraphs [0120]-[0182], Folk lists many possible feed materials considered suitable for treatment using the method and apparatus disclosed therein, including materials primarily comprising solids ( e.g., domestic trash; domestic and industrial mud; gypsum; hazardous,
industrial, and domestic solid wastes; sludges from oil/water separators; and sludges from domestic and industrial water treatment); as well as feed materials which contain liquids or fluids (e.g., water waste having hazardous substances; waste water containing oil or other hazardous substances; waste fluids; emulsion and waste liquids; and all types of oil waste). However, the method and apparatus disclosed in Folk was clearly developed and described as addressing problems presented by drying feed material primarily containing solids, such as drilling cuttings (the original focus/problem), garbage, sludges, etc.
For example, Folk describes the method as including crushing or otherwise reducing the size of the feed material, and the apparatus for performing the method as including a gear crusher (110), a grinder, or a shredder, to accomplish such size reduction of solid materials because drying the resulting smaller solid material is easier and faster (Folk, paragraphs [0081 ]-[0082]). Size reduction only makes sense when solid materials, not liquids, are being processed for drying /dehydrating.
Additionally, at paragraph [0083], Folk describes outlet vapor (l00V) (e.g. steam and other gaseous components) produced from heating the feed material in the main tube and being vented via a stack or chimney (180) - i.e., outlet vapor (l00V) (which is essentially water vaporized and separated from wet solids material being drying) is released and discarded into the atmosphere.
Thus, Folk teaches that water vapor produced and separated from feed material during the drying method disclosed therein is not collected and retained, nor is it treated to produce purified water vapor from the outlet vapor (l00V), such as by separation of additional impurities, as recited in present Claim 18. Rather, the separated water vapor is itself an unwanted material to be discarded ( released to the atmosphere) as taught in Folk, whereas the water vapor formed during performance of the presently claimed method of Claim 18 involves is separated and collected to produce the desired purified water product.
Furthermore, at paragraph [0084], Folk suggests including a flare (190) on the stack or chimney (180) to burn off flammable components if present in the feed material and, consequently, in the outlet vapor. Thus, Folks contemplates that where flammable components (such as the dissolved and/or vapor impurities recited in present Claim 18) are separated from the feed material during drying/ heating, they are also treated as unwanted byproduct waste material and destroyed to avoid release into the atmosphere. In contrast, the presently claimed method recited in independent Claim 18 requires separating and collecting one or more dissolved impurities, vapor impurities, or combinations thereof, from the hot mixed vapor to produce a remaining purified water product (while present Claim 20 requires further separating the one or more dissolved impurities, vapor impurities, or combinations thereof, by fractional separation to produce one or more non-aqueous products, instead of discarding or destroying the impurities as in Folk).
Notably, several of the exemplary feed materials listed in Folk in association with water treatment processes are identified as sludges produced from water treatment processes, which are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the relevant art to consist primarily solid material product resulting from typical wastewater purification treatments. On the other hand, the presently claimed method is a wastewater purification treatment method applied to untreated wastewater and which also produces a sludge product containing solid impurities to which the method and apparatus disclosed in Folk would be clearly applicable for drying and further processing. In other words, the method and apparatus disclosed by Folk, by its own description, is applicable for treating and further drying sludge products such as those produced by the presently claimed method, rather than the untreated wastewater which is first subjected to induction heating, according to present independent Claim 18.
As explained above, the disclosure of Folk clearly describes a method and apparatus which includes steps and devices for size reduction of solid feed materials to improve the efficiency of subsequent drying by induction heating of the crushed, ground, or shredded feed material, and also includes steps and devices for separating and discarding and/or destroying vapor produced during the heating, including releasing water vapor into the atmosphere through a vent, and destroying flammable components of the vapor by operation of a flare at the vent. Based on these features and other descriptions provided in Folk wherein solid materials are dried, retained and further processed while water and other vapor products are treated as waste products to be separated, discarded, and destroyed, Applicant asserts that persons of ordinary skill in the relevant art would not apply the method and apparatus of Folk to the treatment, refinement and purification of wastewater, which necessarily involves separating and collecting purified water as the primary product and goal, and also recognizing impurities in the wastewater as potentially valuable products to also be separated and collected form the wastewater, as recited in presently amended independent Claim 18.
On page 4 of the Office Action, the Examiner admits that Folk does not teach collecting and combining mixed vapor product into a combined mixed vapor product which is then subjected to separation of one or more impurities, to produce purified water. The Examiner then cites DiBenerdini as disclosing such features. Applicant strongly disagrees with this interpretation of the method disclosed in DiBenerdini. Furthermore, as now more clearly recited in amended independent Claim 18, in the presently claimed method, two or more mixed vapor product streams remain after the hot mixed vapor product is used to produce electricity and it is these two or more mixed vapor product streams that are collected and combined into a combined mixed vapor product, which still contains impurities and is subsequently subjected to further separation steps to produce separate purified water and one or more separate concentrated impurity product streams.
DiBenerdini discloses an integrated method and apparatus which produces both valuable aluminum hydroxide and purified water, with energy integration for concurrent production of the purified water, which reduces the otherwise costly conventional process for producing the aluminum hydroxide. Specifically, DiBenerdini teaches performing hydrothermal oxidation of scrap aluminum to produce the aluminum hydroxide, hydrogen and heat, and then applying that heat to contaminated wastewater which produces a mixed vapor product, from which the distilled (purified) water product is condensed for collection.
On pages 4-5 of the Office Action, the Examiner specifically asserts that the method and apparatus disclosed in DiBenerdini includes "collecting and combining mixed vapor product, which remains after converting energy from the hot mixed vapor product, to form a combined mixed vapor product ("the steam derived from the dirty water ... can be used to drive a steam turbine to generate electricity or otherwise convert the steam to a usable form of power ... steam can then be captured and condensed to distilled water , and separating one or more impurities from the combined mixed vapor product and producing purified water." However, Applicant respectfully but firmly disagrees with this interpretation of DiBenerdini. DiBenerdini does not teach collecting and combining two or more mixed vapor product streams, which remain after using a hot mixed vapor product to produce electricity, to form a combined mixed vapor product, which is then distilled to produce purified water as recited in present independent Claim 18. Rather, DiBenerdini teaches the production of two separate mixed vapor products which are never combined but, instead, each is separately further processed and their purified water product streams used separately and quite differently.
Furthermore, as explained in more detail below, the steam product which is used to produce electricity, according to the method and apparatus described in DiBenerdini, is not a mixed vapor product (i.e., it contains only distilled water vapor) and has not been collected and combined from two or more mixed vapor product streams, as recited in presently amended/ independent Claim 18. Instead, DiBenerdini describes a single mixed vapor stream which is formed by passing wastewater (207, 248) through a heat exchanger (210) and then through a steam/waste separator (208) which produces a waste (impurities) stream exiting therefrom (253) and a separate distilled (purified) H2O (gas) stream also exiting therefrom (255). It is the distilled (purified) H2O (gas) stream that is provided to a steam turbine (216) to produce electricity and then condensed to produce a distilled (purified) water product.
More specifically, with reference to Figs. 2 and 3, DiBenerdini teaches producing (1) a mixed superheated steam and hydrogen product, directly by hydrothermal oxidation (HTO) of scrap aluminum in the presence of water [in a combustion chamber (202)], and eventually separating and collecting (208) the hydrogen to form a hydrogen product which can be sold, while the remaining (HTO-derived) steam component is fed through a heat exchanger (204) and cooled to liquid water (256) and fed back (recycled, 216, 224) to the combustion chamber (202) as a reactant for the HTO reaction. This separated purified water stream is never used to produce electricity, nor collected for use as a purified water product.
On the other hand, with reference still to Figs. 2 and 3, DiBenerdini also teaches concurrently producing a separate (2) mixed steam and impurities product, by feeding and heating contaminated wastewater (252) in a countercurrent heat exchanger (210), using the mixed superheated steam and hydrogen product (230) from the concurrent but otherwise unrelated HTO reaction. Furthermore, the wastewater-derived (2) mixed steam and impurities product is treated to separate and collect the impurities (212), which may or may not be formed into separate valuable downstream products (e.g., brine and salt when wastewater is seawater or other salty water, paragraphs [0023] and [0039]), or waste (208, 253). After removal of the impurities, the wastewater-derived steam (which is, therefore, no longer a mixed vapor product as recited in presently amended independent Claim 18), is then provided (255) to a steam turbine (216) to produce electricity, followed by condensing the impurity-free steam / vapor to produce purified water (218, 257, 258). Notably, the generated electricity is not integrated or recycled for use in any way back into the method and apparatus described in DiBenerdini, but rather it is treated as another byproduct which can be sold and used elsewhere in unrelated processes and systems.
With the foregoing explanation in mind, Applicant asserts that there are several material and patentably different features recited in amended independent Claim 18 compared to the method and apparatus disclosed in DiBenerdini, as will now be more specifically explained.
For example, in the presently claimed method recited by amended independent Claim 18, wastewater is heated by a plurality of induction heaters to produce wastewater-derived hot mixed vapor product (steam and impurities), the energy of which is converted to electricity ( e.g., using two or more steam turbines). This electricity is provided back to the induction heaters to continue heating wastewater, which reduces the externally sourced electricity needed to operate the induction heaters and continuously heat the wastewater. As explained above, neither of Folk or DiBenerdini disclose or suggest producing electricity using a mixed vapor product and then using that electricity to operate induction heaters or other apparatus employed in performing the method for producing purified water, as recited in presently amended independent Claim 18.
This argument is not persuasive because Folk is relied upon to teach processing of drilling cuttings and other feed material with induction heating (Folk, see ¶2), further the scope of Folk is not limited since Folk expands to industrial waste and wastewater-treatment wastes (Folk, see ¶116), as disclosed in Folk, Although, the process of Folk does not yield “purified water” per se as claimed, it desirable in Folk to reuse or recycle recovered water 230 from the energy process (Folk, see¶95) and thus Folk suggests further/subsequent treatment for use of said recovered water.
Further, Folk does not need to have the same objective as the claimed invention to render the claimed invention obvious. Folk is analogous because Folk discloses an apparatus for applying induction heating to waste streams and broadly integrates wastewater treatment processes. When determining whether a prior art reference meets the "same field of endeavor" test for the analogous art, the primary focus is on what the reference discloses. Airbus, 41 F.3d at 1380. The examiner must consider the disclosure of each reference "in view of the ‘the reality of the circumstances.’" Airbus, 41 F.3d at 1380 (quoting Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1326, 72 USPQ2d at 1212). These circumstances are to be weighed "from the vantage point of the common sense likely to be exerted by one of ordinary skill in the art in assessing the scope of the endeavor." Airbus, 41 F.3d at 1380. See also Donner Technology, LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC, 979 F.3d 1353, 2020 USPQ2d 11335 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Sanofi-Aventis, 66 F.4th at 1378; and Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, 80 F.4th 1352, 1358-59, 2023 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ("The field of endeavor is ‘not limited to the specific point of novelty, the narrowest possible conception of the field, or the particular focus within a given field.’") (quoting Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., 841 F.3d 995, 1001, 120 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). (See MPEP 2141.01(a)).
Both Folk and DiBenerdin pertain to treating wastewater from either fracking or drilling a wellbore for oil and gas productions (Folk, see ¶7; DiBenerdin, see ¶22). In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, there is a motivation to combine Folk and DiBenerdin. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the modify the method of Folk by incorporating the collecting and separating steps of DiBenerdini because it is an efficient and cost-effective method for cleaning contaminated wastewater (DiBenerdini, see ¶11).
On pgs. 19-21 of Applicant arguments, Applicant argues that:
Furthermore, neither Folk nor DiBenerdini disclose or suggest having two or more mixed vapor product streams which remain after using a hot mixed vapor product to produce electricity and which are collected and combined into a combined mixed vapor product, which is then subjected to separation of impurities therefrom, as recited in amended independent Claim 18. Unlike Folk and DiBenerdini as explained above, in the presently claimed method recited in amended independent Claim 18, impurities are not removed from the wastewater-derived, collected, and combined mixed vapor product until after it has been used to produce electricity (such as by passing through steam turbines).
Finally, persons of ordinary skill in the relevant art would not be motivated or have a clear understanding of how to combine Folk and DiBenerdini, as asserted by the Examiner, to develop the presently claimed method and apparatus as recited in amended independent Claim 18. In fact, Applicants submit that modification of the method and apparatus disclosed in Folk based on the teachings of DiBenerdini would not result in the presently claimed method and apparatus of amended independent Claim 18. For example, as explained above, Folk does teaches separating and discarding water vapor as an unwanted byproduct, rather than collecting and retaining water vapor or purified water as a desired product. Furthermore, although DiBenerdini teaches forming, collecting, and producing two entirely separate water vapor and purified water streams as valuable product streams, however DiBenerdini does not actually teach "collecting and combining mixed vapor products" to form a combined mixed vapor product as recited in independent Claim 18, since DiBenerdini clearly teaches separating impurities from one such water vapor product (not mixed vapor) before using it to produce electricity, and never combines the two water vapor streams anyway. Accordingly, Applicant submits that persons of ordinary skill would not be motivated to modify the method and apparatus described in Folk using the teachings of DiBenerdini, as proposed by the Examiner, since the objectives and intended products are quite different and such modification will not actually address or resolve the fact that Folk fails to disclose the feature comprising "collecting and combining mixed vapor products" to form a combined mixed vapor product (as admitted in the Office Action). There is every indication in Folk that the water vapor produced by the method and apparatus described therein is expected to still include impurities, such as flammable contaminants, and is discarded rather than collected for further processing.
Additionally, Folk does not disclose or suggest a method and apparatus which produces two or more mixed vapor product streams which are susceptible to collecting and combining into a combined mixed product for subjecting to impurities separation techniques, as recited in independent Claim 18. Rather, Folk discloses and suggests producing a waste mixed vapor stream which may include water vapor to be released to the atmosphere and possibly also flammable components (impurities) which are destroyed and discarded, while DiBenerdini discloses producing a purified steam product stream (rather than the presently recited mixed vapor product) which may used to produce electricity before being directly condensed to produce purified water.
It is unclear what features of the method and apparatus of Folk could be successfully modified with features from the method and apparatus from DiBenerdini without interfering with, or diminishing or otherwise obstructing, effective performance and operation the method and use of the apparatus disclosed in Folk in the manner intended and taught by Folk.
Based on the foregoing explanations and arguments, as well as the features recited in amended independent Claim 18, Applicant submits that Claim 18, as well as Claim 19 which depends therefrom, are patentable over the combination of Folk and DiBenerdini. Accordingly, Applicant hereby requests withdrawal of this rejection, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, based on Folk and DiBenerdini.
This argument is moot because amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection.
On pgs. 22-24 of Applicant arguments, Applicant argues that:
At the top of page 6 of the Office Action, it is admitted that neither Folk or DiBenerdini disclose or suggest separating and recovering concentrated or purified impurity streams as recited in Claim 20. Clay is cited and relied upon as teaching such features, i.e., separation of impurities from a mixed vapor product, because Clay describes fractional separation of oil impurities by fractional distillation which produces one or more non-aqueous products (i.e., oil). However, Applicant asserts that persons of ordinary skill in the relevant art would not see effective and efficient fractional distillation of mixed oil compositions ( e.g., crude oil, or heavy and light fractions thereof), which is the objective of oil refining technologies, as being particularly applicable or instructive to the treatment of wastewater for production of purified water and separation and recovery of one or more impurity product streams, since such impurities have historically been discarded as unwanted byproducts of water purification operations, while the fractions of crude oil routinely separated by distillation are themselves known, desired, and selected for separation as being valuable products which are intentionally isolated by processes such as that disclosed in Clay. The presently claimed method and apparatus, on the other hand, recognizes the potential value of such previously discarded and destroyed impurities, separate and aside from the primary intentional purified water product, and includes further method steps for additional processing to separate and recover one or more valuable impurities product streams.
Applicant respectfully submits that persons of ordinary skill in the relevant art would not be motivated to apply the teachings of Clay to modify the method and apparatus disclosed in Folk, whether or not modified as proposed by the Examiner based on the teachings of DiBenerdini, because the field of endeavor and objectives of the technology disclosed in Clay are materially different from those of either or Folk and DiBenerdini, as well as from the presently claimed invention recited in Claim 20 and which includes the features of Claim 18 and 19 from which it depends.
Clay clearly discloses a method for refining crude oil which is a method of fractional separation of crude oil which comprises several hydrocarbon constituents of differing molecular weight, to produce several products each comprising one or more of said hydrocarbon constituents which fall within defined preferred ranges of molecular weight - i.e., each product comprises a fraction of the total hydrocarbon constituents of the crude oil, selected and separated by fractional distillation based on molecular weight. The hydrocarbon constituents of crude oil and molecular weight-based fractions thereof are separated and collected because they are considered useful for different purposes, rather than being discarded as byproducts (as have been the impurities typically found in wastewater which are addressed by the invention of Claim 20).
On the other hand, wastewater is typically processed, as in the presently claimed invention recited in amended independent Claim 18, in part, to separate and remove various types of impurities and contaminants, which are completely different materials than the water which is separated and purified from the wastewater as the main product. Furthermore, the types of impurities and contaminants vary depending on the source of the wastewater and have historically been, and often still are, considered byproducts of the wastewater purification processes which are discarded. Sometimes, depending on the nature of the contaminant and impurities, their separation and recovery from purified water and from one another may produce a byproduct stream actually having value and being useful. Thus, sometimes separation and recovery of specific contaminants and impurities is worth performing, to obtain byproducts comprising one or more such impurities which have their own value for other uses. The presently claimed method recited in Claim 20 includes separation and recovery of selected impurities from a mixed vapor product produced by heating wastewater, to produce valuable byproduct streams instead of discarding them as waste products (as is taught, e.g., by the disclosure of Folk). Thus, the fractional separation of crude oil disclosed in Clay does not separate impurities generally considered undesirable and not worth collecting, but rather divides crude oil feed material comprising a mixture of many types of hydrocarbons into subsets of those of hydrocarbon constituents based on molecular weight I boiling point ranges ("fractions"), each which is valuable and useful.
Based on the foregoing explanations and distinguishing features, Applicant submits that the combination of the method and apparatus disclosed in Folk, even as modified by the teachings of DiBenerdini and Clay, fails to teach or suggest each and every feature of the presently claimed invention as recited in Claim 20 and which includes the features of Claim 18 and 19 from which it depends.
This argument is not persuasive because Clay is analogous to the claimed invention as well to relevant to Folk and DiBenerdini. Specificlly Clay expressly discloses removing purified steam condensate from a vessel after treatment via fractional distillation, purified steam condensate is a type of purified water a stream.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, there is a motivation to combine Folk, DiBenerdin and Clay. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the further modify the method of Folk (as modified by DiBenerdini) by incorporating the separating step of Clay because it produces a purified steam condensate (Clay, see C5/L10-20).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Folk (US 2017/0254164) in view of DiBenerdini (US 2020/0131049) and futher in view of Yamaguchi (USPN 6,269,645).
Regarding claim 18, Folk teaches a method for recovering water (form recovered water 230 at the drain 550, see ¶67) from unprocessed water (see ¶115 and ¶120-¶182) containing one or more impurities including solid impurities, dissolved impurities, and vapor impurities (the feed material 30 (e.g. oil, water, fluid or combinations thereof covered or saturated drilling cuttings), see ¶82 and ¶112-114), the method comprising the steps of:
separating solid impurities from the unprocessed water by heating the unprocessed water using a plurality of inductive heaters (induction heater coils 70 are used to the feed material 30, see ¶74) and producing sludge product containing solid impurities, and hot mixed vapor product containing water and one or more of dissolved impurities, vapor impurities, or a combination thereof (the outlet material 100 is substantially outlet solids 100S and outlet vapors 100V with minimal liquids 100L, see ¶80),
converting energy from the hot mixed vapor product to electricity, at least partially operating the plurality of inductive heaters using the electricity to heat additional unprocessed water (the outlet vapors are burned to generate electricity to at least partially supply the induction heating, see ¶35) and thereby produce additional sludge product and additional hot mixed water vapor product (the process of Folk has an energy feedback loop by generating electricity and feeding it back to the inductive heater therefore the mixed water vapor product is functionally present), …and
separating …vapor impurities…and producing water (condensed liquid may be collected at the drain 550, see ¶100; although there is a step of removing impurities performed by scrubber 360, this step occurs after producing water).
Although Folk does not explicitly teach a method of producing purified water, it would have obvious to modify the method of Folk for the intended use of producing purified water because the process of Folk processes waste sources from wastewater treatment systems and recovers water from steam production therefore it obvious and desirable to achieve the intended use and because potable/purified water is a valuable and rare commodity.
Folk does not teach collecting and combining two or more mixed vapor product streams, which remains after converting energy from the hot mixed vapor product, to form a combined mixed vapor product; and separating one or more of dissolved impurities, vapor impurities, or combinations thereof, from the combined mixed vapor product and producing purified water.
In a related field of endeavor, DiBenerdini teaches a method and apparatus for water purification using continuous hydrothermal oxidation regime (see ABS) comprising
collecting and combining mixed vapor product, which remains after converting energy from the hot mixed vapor product, to form a combined mixed vapor product (“the steam derived from the dirty water…can be used to drive a steam turbine to generate electricity or otherwise convert the steam to a useable form of power…steam can then be captured and condensed to distilled water”, see ¶13, ¶38 and Fig. 2; the process of DiBenerdini is a closed-circuit process for H2O, which implies that the steam/vapor will be reused, captured and combined); and
separating one or more of dissolved impurities… from the combined mixed vapor product and producing purified water (H2/containment separator 212 and steam/waste separator 208 in Fig. 2 and ¶37; steam is condensed to distilled water, see ¶13; distilled water is a type of purified water; purifying ocean salt water to potable water, see ¶23; salt (NaCl) is a dissolved impurity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the modify the method of Folk by incorporating the collecting and separating steps of DiBenerdini because it is an efficient and cost-effective method for cleaning contaminated wastewater (DiBenerdini, see ¶11).
In a related field of endeavor, Yamaguchi teaches power plant (see ABS) comprising the step of combining two or more mixed vapor product streams, which remains after converting energy from the hot mixed vapor product, to form a combined mixed vapor product (corresponds to vapor streams exiting turbines which are combined as shown in Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the modify the method of Folk (as modified by DiBenerdini) by incorporating the step of combining two or more mixed vapor product streams, which remains after converting energy from the hot mixed vapor product, to form a combined mixed vapor as disclosed by Yamaguchi because it leads to improved efficiency as well as allowing more heat to be gained (Yamaguchi, see C9/L15-35 and C13/L1-15).
Regarding claim 19, Folk, DiBenerdini and Yamaguchi teach the method of Claim 18, wherein the step of converting energy from the hot mixed vapor product to electricity is performed at least in part by: providing hot mixed vapor product to two or more steam turbines (Yamaguchi, high-, medium- and low- pressure turbines 31, 33 and 34, see Fig. 6), wherein each of the two or more steam turbines produces work energy and a respective one of the two or more mixed vapor product streams which remains after converting energy from the hot mixed vapor product, and transferring the work energy to one or more electric generators, wherein each of the one or more electric generators converts work energy to electricity, which is used to operate, at least in part, the plurality of inductive heaters (Folk, pressurized steam to power a turbine to drive a generator to produce electricity to at least partially supply the power supply 500 or other electrical needs of the induction heater 10, see ¶106) (Yamaguchi, Power Generator G, see Fig. 6).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Folk (US 2017/0254164) in view of DiBenerdini (US 2020/0131049) in view of Yamaguchi (USPN 6,269,645) and further in view of Clay (USPN 3,449,244).
Regarding claim 20, Folk, DiBenerdini and Yamaguchi teach the method of Claim 19.
The combination does not teach wherein the step of separating one or more of dissolved impurities, vapor impurities, or combinations thereof, from the combined mixed vapor product comprises fractional separation and one or more non-aqueous products are also produced, each of the one or more non-aqueous products comprising a selected dissolved impurity, a selected vapor impurity, or a combination thereof.
In a related field endeavor, Clay teaches a process for the purification of steam condensate (see C1/L10-25) comprising the step of separating one or more of dissolved impurities, vapor impurities, or combinations thereof, from the combined mixed vapor product comprises fractional separation (oil impurities separated as by fractional distillation, see C5/L10-20) and one or more non-aqueous products are also produced (i.e. oil), each of the one or more non-aqueous products comprising a selected dissolved impurity (removing dissolved oils, see C1/L40-55)…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the further modify the method of Folk (as modified by DiBenerdini) by incorporating the separating step of Clay because it produces a purified steam condensate (Clay, see C5/L10-20).
Conclusion
Collins (US 2005/0029174) teaches a hybrid magnetohydrodynamo field sanitation generator for treating wastewater, sewages and sludges and recovering potable water (see ABS) and recovering purified water (the filtration system producing potable water, see ¶50) comprising the step of collecting and combining mixed vapor product… to form a combined mixed vapor product (between the two chambers the recovered vapor and treated water are discharged here before passing into the filtrate holding tank prior to further treatment, see ¶58).
Santilli (USPN 6,663,752) teaches cleaning burning liquid produced via a self-sustaining processing of liquid feedstock (see ABS) comprising the step of producing steam by turbine to produce drinking water (see claim 7).
Munro (US 2014/0076812) teaches a water purification system and method (see ABS) comprising the stp of generating electricity and producing filtered water (see ¶29).
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 EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7849. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7 am - 6 pm EST.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights