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Claims 1-17 have been withdrawn.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.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-17 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/09/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 19 is 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 19 recites “each of which…” it is unclear what feature this phrase is referring to?
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).
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 mixed vapor product, 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).
Regarding claim 19, Folk and DiBenerdini teach the method of Claim 19, 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 one or more turbines, each of which produces work energy and the mixed vapor product which remains after converting energy from the hot mixed vapor product, and transferring the work energy to one or more electric generators, each of which 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).
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) and further in view of Clay (USPN 3,449,244).
Regarding claim 20, Folk and DiBenerdini 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).
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