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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 21 June 2023 has been received and considered by the Examiner.
Preliminary Amendment
Applicant’s preliminary amendments to the claims filed on 3 May 2023 have been received and considered for this action.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Appropriate section headings should be included in the specification.
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 7, and 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 should be amended to read “…a part of the first mother liquor, a part of the second mother liquor, or both a part of the first mother liquor and a part of the second mother liquor…”
Claim 7 recites a “fourth mother liquor” without any mention of a “third mother liquor” in the claim or in any preceding claim. Claim 7 further recites a “fourth recovery device” without ever mentioning any other recovery device in the preceding claims.
Claim 18 refers to “the concentrating step” as “step(b)”, but step (b) could also refer to step (b) of claim 1. It is recommended to remove the reference to “step (b)” in claim 18.
Claims 19 and 20 should each be amended to read “…to a concentration of
Appropriate correction is required.
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 10 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.
The term “essentially” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “essentially zero liquid discharge” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Because it is unclear how much liquid discharge meets the limitations of ”essentially zero liquid discharge” the scope of the claim is indefinite and it is rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1, 2, 4-8, 10-12, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Ham et al. (Chem. Eng. Process. 1998, 27, 207-213) in view of Randall et al. (Desalination 2011, 266(1-3), 256-262) and John et al. (Sep. Pur. Tech. 2020, 236, 116271).
Regarding claim 1, van der Ham teaches a method of purifying waste (production of pure water and salt from waste or process streams; Fig. 3 caption) where the method comprises:
(a) providing the waste in a eutectic freeze crystallization (EFC) crystallizer (feed stream is introduced in a cooling disk column crystallizer (CDCC), maintained at the eutectic temperature; p. 208, column 2, ¶ 3 and Fig. 3);
(b) carrying out eutectic freeze crystallization by reducing the temperature of the leachate to a first eutectic point to obtain a first mixture comprising ice and a first crystalline salt (maintained at the eutectic temperature… ice crystals are expected to float to the top of the column while the salt crystals sink to the bottom; p. 208, col. 2, ¶ 3 - p. 208, col. 1, ¶ 1);
(c) separating the ice and said first crystalline salt into an ice stream and a crystalline salt stream (Fig. 3) to provide a first slurry stream comprising the first crystalline salt (underlflow of the separator; p. 207, col. 2, ¶ 2) and a second slurry stream comprising the ice (top flow of the separator; p. 207, col. 2, ¶ 2) ;
(d) separating and individually recovering the first crystalline salt and a first mother liquor from the first slurry stream (underflow of the separator is fed to a filter, where adhering liquid is removed from the salt crystals; p. 207, col. 2, ¶ 2);
(e) providing a first bleed stream which is at least part of the first mother liquor in a eutectic freeze crystallization (EFC) crystallizer (adhering liquid is …recycled to the crystallizer; p. 207, col. 2, ¶ 2);
Van der Ham also teaches that the process can be repeated to allow for a second eutectic freeze crystallization (two recycled brine streams re-enter the crystallizer in Fig. 3), and that the process can be applied to various waste streams (p. 213, col.1, ¶ 2).
Van der Ham does not explicitly teach carrying out the process a second time at a second eutectic point in a second, distinct crystallizer. Nor does van der Ham teach applying the method to a landfill leachate in particular.
However, Randall also teaches that the EFC can be applied to purify waste streams (the liquid waste from the RO plant was recovered as pure water, pure calcium sulphate and pure sodium sulphate; abstract). Randall further teaches “that sequential removal of individual salts from a multi-component aqueous stream using EFC technology is theoretically possible since each salt crystallizes out at its own unique eutectic temperature. Thus, multiple individual salts can be recovered in their pure form by cooling the system down to the unique eutectic temperature of each salt and sequentially removing it along with ice.” (p. 257, col. 2, ¶ 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first bleed stream (recycled brine) taught by van der Ham to a second eutectic freeze crystallization (EFC) crystallizer maintained at a second eutectic temperature, as taught by Randall, resulting in reducing the temperature of the first bleed stream to a second eutectic point to obtain a second mixture comprising ice and a second crystalline salt, thereby meeting the limitations outlined in step (f). It would have also been obvious to separate the ice and said second crystalline salt into a second ice stream and a second crystalline salt stream in the method of modified van der Ham, as taught by Randall.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify van der Ham according to the teachings of Randall in order to recover multiple individual salts from the waste stream in pure form, as taught by Randall.
Like van der Ham, Randall also does not teach applying the EFC method to landfill leachate waste streams in particular.
However, John teaches that a suspension freeze crystallization, a class that includes eutectic freeze crystallization (p. 2, col. 1, ¶ 2) can be applied to landfill leachate wastewater with good success (purified highly concentrated landfill leachate with appropriate efficiency; p. 8, col. 2, ¶ 4), and that this leachate comprises dissociated ions (the high electrical conductivities measured indicate dissociated ions are present; p. 6, col. 2, ¶ 2) and organic compounds (the wastewater contained a lot of organics; p. 6, col. 2, ¶ 1). John further teaches that it would be appropriate to apply their methods in a EFC process where the salts are recovered (testing the crystallizer as an EFC process with salt and nutrient recovery would be of interest; p. 9, col. 1, ¶ 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method of modified van der Ham to a waste feed that was a landfill leachate comprised of water, dissociated ions, and organic compounds. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because van der Ham teaches that the EFC method can be used to purify various waste streams, and John teaches that the genus of suspension freeze crystallizations can be applied to landfill leachate wastewater successfully.
Regarding claim 2, modified van der Ham teaches the method of claim 1, where in step (b) the ice forms simultaneously with the formation of the first crystalline salt (the EFC process, where two solids are formed simultaneously; p. 208, col. 1, ¶ 2).
Regarding claim 4, modified van der Ham teaches the method of claim 1, where van der Ham teaches a part of both the first mother liquor and the second mother liquor being recycled back into the EFC crystallizer (recycled brines; Fig. 3).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, modified van der Ham teaches the method of claim 1, where van der Ham further teaches a work-up step comprising purifying the ice by washing (ice is washed by a reflux stream of molten ice crystals; p. 207, col. 2, ¶ 2), thereby meeting the limitations of claims 5 and 16.
Regarding claim 6, modified van der Ham teaches the method of claim 1, where Randall teaches the use of a second eutectic temperature, as analyzed above. Randall does not explicitly teach the temperature of the second eutectic point being below that of the first eutectic point.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to first separate the crystalline salt with the highest eutectic point temperature and then work down in temperature from there. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to crystallize one salt at a time and to sequentially remove them, as taught by Randall (p. 257, col. 2, ¶ 2). First cooling to a temperature at the eutectic point of one salt and below the eutectic point of another would result in the crystallization of two separate crystalline salts, giving an impure composition.
Regarding claim 7, modified van der Ham teaches the method of claim 1, where Randall teaches that individual salts can be recovered in their pure form (p. 257, col. 2, ¶ 2), which would imply separating and individually recovering an additional mother liquor and a second crystalline salt from a second crystalline salt stream using a recovery device.
Regarding claim 8, modified van der Ham teaches the method of claim 7, where Randall teaches removing all the possible crystallizing salts (p. 257, col. 2, ¶ 2). Such a process would involve repeating the steps taught by modified van der Ham as many times as necessary, including by providing a second bleed stream which is at least part of the fourth mother liquor in a third EFC crystallizer; carrying out EFC by reducing the temperature of the second bleed stream to a third eutectic point to obtain a third mixture comprising ice and a third crystalline salt; and, separating the ice and said third crystalline salt into an ice stream and a third crystalline salt stream.
Regarding claim 10, modified van der Ham teaches the method of claim 1, where Randall teaches successive removal of all possible crystallizing salts where each salt crystallizes at its own unique eutectic temperature, which would necessarily involve a final solidification by reducing the temperature below the eutectic points corresponding to the dissociate ions to obtain a final mixture comprising ice and a final solid and separating the ice and said final solid into an ice stream and a final solid stream, thereby obtaining essentially zero waste (a combination of different technologies is capable of attaining a near zero waste discharge; p. 261, col. 1, ¶ 5 and Fig. 5 shows the role of EFC in this process). Though neither Randall nor van der Ham specifically envision eutectic points corresponding to organic compounds in the waste stream, by cooling the mixture to a point necessary to generate essentially zero waste, a goal identified by Randall (p. 261, col. 2, ¶ 3), one would be cooling below the eutectic point of any organic compounds in the waste stream, and would therefore meet the limitations of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 11, modified van der Ham teaches the method of claim 1, where Randall teaches the waste stream being subjected to a concentrating step before it is provided in the EFC crystallizer (Stage 1, experiments A1-A4, Fig. 2 and 3, remove water as ice and cause concentration). Randall further teaches that the eutectic concentration of sodium sulfate is 4.2 wt% (p. 259, col. 2, ¶ 3), which indicates that a TDS concentration of at least 4.2 wt% is required for eutectic freezing of sodium sulfate to occur.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increase the concentration of total dissolved solids to a concentration of at least 4.2 wt%, as taught by Randall, thereby meeting the limitations of the instant claim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve a concentration of sodium sulfate at which it could be removed by the EFC process taught by modified van der Ham.
Regarding claim 12, modified van der Ham teaches the method of claim 1, where John teaches the landfill leachate water being treated comprising the elements of magnesium, calcium, sodium, and potassium (Table A.2). In the water of the leachate, these metals would exist as dissociated ions, thereby meeting the limitations of claim 12.
Regarding claim 15, modified van der Ham teaches the method of claim 1, where van der Ham further teaches that ice may form before (ice starts to form at point B ) and with the formation of the first crystalline salt (At this so-called eutectic point, the solution is saturated with salt and further cooling results in the formation of pure ice and salt as separate crystals; p. 207, Introduction, ¶ 1 and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, modified van der Ham teaches the method of claim 8, where Randall teaches the use of a third eutectic point, as analyzed above. Randall does not explicitly teach the temperature of the third eutectic point being below that of the second eutectic point.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to first separate the crystalline salt with the highest eutectic point temperature and then work down in temperature from there, thereby arriving at the instantly claimed invention where the temperature of the third eutectic point is below that of the second eutectic point. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose the temperature in this way in order to crystallize one salt at a time and to sequentially remove them, as taught by Randall (p. 257, col. 2, ¶ 2). Going to a temperature at the eutectic point of one salt and below the eutectic point of another would result in the crystallization of two separate crystalline salts, giving an impure composition.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Ham et al. (Chem. Eng. Process. 1998, 27, 207-213), Randall et al. (Desalination 2011, 266(1-3), 256-262) and John et al. (Sep. Pur. Tech. 2020, 236, 116271), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vaessen et al. (Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 2003, 42(20), 4874-4880).
Regarding claim 3, modified van der Ham teaches the method of claim 1, where van der Ham teaches separating and individually recovering the ice and a second mother liquor from the second slurry (top flow of the separator, containing the ice crystals, flows into a wash column. The ice is washed by a reflux stream of molten ice crystals and pure water leaves the column at the top. The wash liquor leaving at the bottom of the column is recycled to the crystallizer; p. 207, col. 2, ¶ 2).
Van der Ham does not teach the recovering comprising centrifuging the first slurry stream, the second slurry stream, or both the first and second slurry streams.
However, Vaessen also teaches a eutectic freeze crystallization for processing waste streams (abstract) and further teaches that the first slurry stream and the second slurry stream (salt and ice slurries) can be centrifuged as part of their workup procedure (the salt and ice slurries are filtered or centrifuged, washed, and dried; p. 4874, col. 2, ¶ 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to separate and individually recover the ice and a second mother liquor from the second slurry stream, as taught by van der Ham, where the recovering comprises centrifuging both the first slurry stream and the second slurry stream, as taught by Vaessen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Vaessen teaches that these are usual techniques to apply to the slurries in an analogous method.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Ham et al. (Chem. Eng. Process. 1998, 27, 207-213), Randall et al. (Desalination 2011, 266(1-3), 256-262) and John et al. (Sep. Pur. Tech. 2020, 236, 116271), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Wrubel et al. (US 2015/0321924 A1).
Regarding claim 9, modified van der Ham teaches the method of claim 8, but does not specifically teach the identity of the first crystalline salt, the second crystalline salt, or the third crystalline salt.
However, Wrubel teaches an analogous method of isolating multiple crystalline salts and water from contaminated streams (crystallization separation process for separating contaminants from aqueous mixtures; [0003] and claim 1), where the salts can be isolated at eutectic points ([0078] and [0101]). Wrubel further teaches in Case B of Example 2 ([0095]), a method where cooling a mixture below the freezing point of ice results in a first crystalline sat comprising Na2SO4 (along with K2SO4 at -2 °C, Table 8) and where continued cooling to second eutectic point results in crystallization of KNO3 (at -10 °C; Table 8). While continued cooling in case B of example 2 results in the third crystalline salt being KCl, case A of example 2 ([0092]-[0094], Tables 6 and 7), teaches that at higher concentration of sodium and lower concentrations of potassium it is sodium chloride that would crystallize next upon continued cooling from -10 °C to -23 °C (Table 7). One of ordinary skill in the art would have therefore recognized, based upon the disclosure of Wrubel, that an EFC process with the appropriate balance of ions would result in a first crystalline salt comprising Na2SO4, a second crystalline salt comprising KNO3, and a third crystalline comprising NaCl.
Because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to carry out the method of modified van der Ham on landfill leachates with a variety of compositions, as taught by John, and because some of these compositions would likely have a balance of ions that would afford crystallization in the order wherein the first crystalline salt comprises Na2SO4, the second crystalline salt comprises KNO3, and the third crystalline comprises NaCl, as taught by Wrubel, the limitations of the instant claim would have also been obvious.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do carry out the EFC process on such a composition because Randall teaches that treatment of waste streams in such a way is effective at reducing waste volume (p. 257, col. 2, ¶ 2) , while John teaches that landfill leachates of varied compositions can be treated with such freeze crystallizations (p. 2, col. 1, ¶ 4 and Table A.2).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Ham et al. (Chem. Eng. Process. 1998, 27, 207-213), Randall et al. (Desalination 2011, 266(1-3), 256-262) and John et al. (Sep. Pur. Tech. 2020, 236, 116271), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Crompton et al. (CA 2948419 A1).
Regarding claim 13, modified van der Ham teaches the method of claim 1, but does not teach adding an antifoam compound at any stage of the process.
However, Crompton also discloses a method for the treatment and recycling of landfill leachate in a zero or reduced liquid discharge system (retrieving leachate produced from the landfill; pre-treating the leachate to produce a pre-treated leachate stream; and recycling the pre-treated leachate stream as part of the feed stream supplied into the at least one evaporator of the ZLD/RLD system; [0004]). Crompton further teaches that the leachate can be pre-treated with an antifoam compound (anti-foam agent; [0005]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an antifoam compound to the leachate before providing the leachate in the EFC crystallizer in the method of modified van der Ham. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce foaming of the leachate during the method of leachate treatment, as taught by Crompton.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Ham et al. (Chem. Eng. Process. 1998, 27, 207-213), Randall et al. (Desalination 2011, 266(1-3), 256-262) and John et al. (Sep. Pur. Tech. 2020, 236, 116271), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view Chivavava et al. (“Chapter 14: Continuous Eutectic Freeze Crystallization” in The Handbook of Continuous Crystallization, N. Yazdanpanah and Z. K. Nagy, eds., 2020, DOI: 10.1039/9781788013581-00508).
Regarding claim 14, modified van der Ham teaches the method of claim 1, but does not teach the EFC process being continuous. However, Chivavava teaches that when EFC is operated as a continuous process it is suitable for treatment of large volumes of saline streams (abstract), as might be generated from a landfill.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the process of modified van der Ham as a continuous process, as taught by Chivavava. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to process large volumes of waste.
Furthermore, it is noted that the courts have held that a continuous process is obvious in view of a batch process disclosed in the prior art. In re Dilnot, 319 F.2d 188, 138 USPQ 248 (CCPA 1963). MPEP 2144.04(V)(E).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Ham et al. (Chem. Eng. Process. 1998, 27, 207-213), Randall et al. (Desalination 2011, 266(1-3), 256-262) and John et al. (Sep. Pur. Tech. 2020, 236, 116271), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Witkamp et al. (US 2004/0060322 A1).
Regarding claim 18, modified van der Ham teaches the method of claim 11, where Randall teaches a pre-concentrating step, as analyzed above. Neither Randal nor van der Ham teach the concentrating step comprising reverse osmosis.
However, Witkamp also teaches an EFC process analogous to that of van der Ham (material is crystallized by freeze crystallizing at a eutectic freezing point of the solution; abstract), and Witkamp further teaches that is preferable to precede the EFC step with an upstream preconcentration step such as reverse osmosis ([0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace in the method of modified van der Ham the crystallization concentration taught by Randall with a reverse osmosis concentrating step, as taught by Witkamp.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Witkamp and Randall both teach that pre-concentration is appropriate to afford solutions that are of the appropriate concentration of eutectic freeze crystallization, and the substitution of reverse osmosis for concentrating by formation of ice is the simple substitution of one known concentrating method for another to obtain the predictable result of a more concentrated solution suitable for EFC. MPEP 2143(B).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, modified van der Ham teaches the method of claim 11, where Randall teaches raising the concentration by pre-concentrating to at least 4.3 wt% in order to reach the eutectic point of sodium sulfate, but does not explicitly teach increasing the total dissolved solids to a concentration of at least 5wt% or 6 wt%, as required by the instant claims.
However, Witkamp teaches that the eutectic point for KNO3 occurs at approximately -8°C for a solution that is 6 wt% KNO-3 and 10 wt% HNO3 (Fig. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pre-concentrate the feed stream in the method of modified van der Ham to a concentration of at least 6 wt% total dissolve solids, thereby arriving at the limitations of claims 19 and 20.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because such a feed of such concentration would allow for the isolation of KNO3 at a concentration temperature that is not too low (Witkamp, [0049]).
It is further noted that, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this case, the prior art teaches that a pre-concentrating step allows one to achieve concentrations of specific dissolved solids that result in eutectic mixture, and therefore the exact degree of concentrating that is required will depend on the composition of the mixture being treated and could be optimized through routine experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas A Piro whose telephone number is (571)272-6344. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/NICHOLAS A. PIRO/Assistant Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735