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 .
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges the amendments set forth by the applicant on 07/11/2026 to claims 26 and 27.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 26 and 27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. For clarity of the record the examiner is referring to the following arguments mentioned in the applicants remarks dated 07/11/2026:
Roth fails to teach amended claim 26 fails to teach that the water screw conveys the slurry through the cooling vessel.
Roth fails to teach amended claim 27, wherein the bubbles that are introduced are separate from the refrigerant.
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.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bakkenes (US20110129409A1) in view of Shah (US4666484A).
Regarding claim 26, Bakkenes teaches a method of treating brines comprising the steps of: pre-cooling the brines using an indirect cooling method; {Paragraph 32, "until ice, sodium chloride, and a mother liquor are obtained, is affected by indirect cooling"}
further cooling the brines in a vessel {Paragraph 34, "cooling step is therefore preferably performed in a vessel"} using a refrigerant {Paragraph 33, "Indirect cooling of the brine is achieved … via a closed circuit with a cooling medium… said cooling medium is cooled using a refrigerant"} to a first temperature equal to a eutectic freezing point of a first mineral salt suspended in the brines so as to transform the brines into a first iced slurry; {Paragraph 37, "The cooled brine … will subsequently be cooled further in a fluidized bed heat exchanger/crystallizer to the eutectic temperature"}
separating ice from the first iced slurry {Paragraph 38, "sodium chloride dihydrate … is separated from the formed ice and optionally mother liquor at the eutectic temperature … using conventional means"} in a separator, {Paragraph 39, "Separation … is performed using … one or more separation vessels"} the separated ice being returned for use as part of the pre-cooling step; {Paragraph 40, "ice may subsequently be melted. Preferably, a part is recycled as wash liquid to the wash column. The cold generated by the melting step can be used to precool fresh raw brine"}
filtering the remainder of the first iced slurry {Paragraph 42, "The sodium chloride dihydrate-rich steam … may be purified before it is subjected to recrystallization step (iv)"} to recover crystallised mineral salts suspended therein. {Paragraph 43, "purified sodium chloride dihydrate is fed to a recrystallizer to form sodium chloride"}
Bakkenes fails to teach conveying the brines and first iced slurry through the vessel used to further cool the brines way of a water screw so as to prevent the first iced slurry from solidifying in place.
Shah, drawn to a system for freeze separation and concertation, teaches conveying the brines and first iced slurry through the vessel used to further cool the brines way of a water screw so as to prevent the first iced slurry from solidifying in place. {Column 2 lines 31-40 re. first screw. Note the screw conveyers by design agitate or move the ice slurry, which prevents it from solidifying in place through settling}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bakkenes with Shah’s teachings conveying the brines and first iced slurry through the vessel used to further cool the brines way of a water screw so as to prevent the first iced slurry from solidifying in place as Shah, similar to Bakkenes, teaches a system utilized for separation of impurities through freezing and creating an ice slurry. Doing so would lower the costs of the system, and the direct conveyance of material from stage-to-stage utilizing the screw, creates no need for pipes in the intermediate steps of the system. {Shah, Column 6 lines 32-33}
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bakkenes (US20110129409A1) modified by Shah (US4666484A), as applied above, in view of Choi (US20160273819A1).
Regarding claim 27, Bakkenes modified by Shah fails to teach where a bubbling gas, separate from the refrigerant, is introduced into the brines so as to prevent the first iced slurry from solidifying in place.
Choi, drawn to an ice slurry manufacturing process, teaches where a bubbling gas, separate from the refrigerant, is introduced into the brines so as to prevent the first iced slurry from solidifying in place. {Paragraph 14 re. solvent bubbling within the ice slurry production tank}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bakkenes modified by Shah with Choi’s teachings where a bubbling gas, separate from the refrigerant, is introduced into the brines so as to prevent the first iced slurry from solidifying in place as Choi, similar to Bakkenes modified by Shah, teaches a method of the efficient creation of an ice slurry {Choi, abstract}. The utilization of solvent bubbles solves the disclosed issue of ice scale formation on the ice slurry production vessel. {Choi, Paragraphs 0013-0014}
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bakkenes (US20110129409A1) modified by Shah (US4666484A), as applied above, in view of Efrat (WO2012104787A1).
Regarding claim 28, Bakkenes modified by Sha fails to teach the step of applying a super-hydrophobic coating to the internal surface of the vessel.
Efrat, drawn to an apparatus and method for freeze desalination, teaches the step of applying a super-hydrophobic coating to the internal surface of the vessel. {Page 15 paragraph 56, "the plates may be coated with super-hydrophobic substance"}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bakkenes modified by Shah with Efrat’s teachings the step of applying a super-hydrophobic coating to the internal surface of the vessel as Efrat exists within the same field of endeavor Bakkenes and Shah, specifically freeze purification/separation. The addition of a vertical chamber and super-hydrophobic coating onto the surfaces of the plates and walls, opposed to a non-vertical chamber, increases the efficiency of stirring and therefore mixing of the brine or liquid to be desalinated. {Efrat, page 16 paragraph 59}
Claim(s) 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bakkenes (US20110129409A1) modified by Shah (US4666484A), as applied above, in view of Thiers (US20190352194A1).
Regarding claims 29-30, Bakkenes modified by Shah fails to teach a step of pre-treating the brines; (Claim 29) and where the step of pre-treating the brines involves chemical treatment of the brines. (Claim 30)
Thiers, drawn to a desalination method, teaches a step of pre-treating the brines; (Claim 29) {Page 8 paragraph 115, "The feedwater 45 … can be fed to one or more pretreatment units"} and where the step of pre-treating the brines involves chemical treatment of the brines. (Claim 30) {Page 8 paragraph 115, "The feedwater 45 … can be fed to one or more pretreatment units such as … either by addition of chemicals"}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bakkenes modified by Shah with Thiers’ teachings of a step of pre-treating the brines; (Claim 29) and where the step of pre-treating the brines involves chemical treatment of the brines (Claim 30) as Thiers, similar to Bakkenes modified by Shah, teaches a method for the separation of salt from an aqueous solution. Pretreating the solutions can be used to separate scale-forming impurities of the solutions to inhibit scale formation on internal units downstream of the pretreatment units {Thiers, page 8 paragraph 115} and removing scales from those internal surfaces is costly and slow. {Theirs, page 42 paragraph 1116}
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bakkenes (US20110129409A1) modified by Shah (US4666484A) and Thiers (US20190352194A1), as applied above, in view of Wessling (EP3045431A1).
Regarding claim 31, Bakkenes modified by Shah and Thiers fails to teach where the step of pre-treating the brines involves capacitive deionization of the brines by passing the brines through a stack of electrode pairs.
Wessling, drawn to a desalination method, teaches where the step of pre-treating the brines involves capacitive deionization of the brines by passing the brines through a stack of electrode pairs. {Column 8 paragraph 39, "a stack for continuous water desalination, ion separation and selective ion removal and concentration by capacitive deionization" and Column 8 paragraph 40, "(1) applying a voltage between first and second current collectors" and Figure 7 references (1-2)}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bakkenes modified by Shah and Theirs with Wessling’s teachings where the step of pre-treating the brines involves capacitive deionization of the brines by passing the brines through a stack of electrode pairs as Wessling, similar to Bakkenes modified by Shah and Thiers, teaches a method and apparatus for continuous water desalination. {Wessling, abstract} Passing water to be desalinated through a channel of anodes, cathodes, and ion exchange membranes results in better desalination efficiency. {Wessling, page 2 paragraph 8}
Claim(s) 32 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bakkenes (US20110129409A1) modified by Shah (US4666484A), as applied above, in view of Avco Corp (GB1453645A).
Regarding claim 32 Bakkenes teaches the vessel {Paragraph 34, "cooling step is therefore preferably performed in a vessel"} using a refrigerant {Paragraph 33, "Indirect cooling of the brine is achieved … via a closed circuit with a cooling medium… said cooling medium is cooled using a refrigerant"} to a second temperature equal to a eutectic freezing point of a second mineral salt suspended in the brines so as to transform the brines into a second iced slurry; {Paragraph 37, "The cooled brine … will subsequently be cooled further in a fluidized bed heat exchanger/crystallizer to the eutectic temperature"}
separating the ice from the second ice slurry{Paragraph 38, "sodium chloride dihydrate … is separated from the formed ice and optionally mother liquor at the eutectic temperature … using conventional means"} in the separator, {Paragraph 39, "Separation … is performed using … one or more separation vessels"} the separated ice being returned for use as part of the pre-cooling step; {Paragraph 40, "ice may subsequently be melted. Preferably, a part is recycled as wash liquid to the wash column. The cold generated by the melting step can be used to precool fresh raw brine"}
and filtering the remainder of the second ice slurry {Paragraph 40, "ice may subsequently be melted. Preferably, a part is recycled as wash liquid to the wash column. The cold generated by the melting step can be used to precool fresh raw brine"} to recover crystallised mineral salts suspended therein. {Paragraph 43, "purified sodium chloride dihydrate is fed to a recrystallizer to form sodium chloride"}
Bakkenes fails to teach further comprising the subsequent steps of: additionally cooling the brines; conveying the brines and second iced slurry through the vessel used to further cool the brines so as to prevent the second iced slurry from solidifying in place.
Shah further teaches conveying the brines and second iced slurry through the vessel used to further cool the brines so as to prevent the second iced slurry from solidifying in place. {Column 2 lines 31-40 re. second screw. Note the screw conveyers by design agitate or move the ice slurry, which prevents it from solidifying in place through settling}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bakkenes with Shah’s teachings of conveying the brines and second iced slurry through the vessel used to further cool the brines so as to prevent the second iced slurry from solidifying in place as Shah, similar to Bakkenes, teaches a system utilized for separation of impurities through freezing and creating an ice slurry. Doing so would lower the costs of the system, and the direct conveyance of material from stage-to-stage utilizing the screw, creates no need for pipes in the intermediate steps of the system. {Shah, Column 6 lines 32-33}.
Bakkenes modified by Shah fails to teach further comprising the subsequent steps of: additionally cooling the brines; and wherein, the eutectic freezing point of the first mineral salt is greater than the eutectic freezing point of the second mineral salt.
Avco Corp, drawn to a purification method and apparatus through liquid freezing, {Avco Corp, title} teaches further comprising the subsequent steps of: additionally cooling the brines; {Page 3 lines 80-86, "The one-stage process … is virtually repeated in the two-stage process … the dilute concentrate … is piped to the freezer-crystallizer of the second stage"} and wherein, the eutectic freezing point of the first mineral salt is greater than the eutectic freezing point of the second mineral salt. {Page 3 lines 95-101, "the second stage concentrate produced in this wash column … has a freezing point substantially lower than the freezing point of the … concentrate produced in the first stage"}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bakkenes modified by Shah with Avco Corp’s teachings further comprising the subsequent steps of: additionally cooling the brines; and wherein, the eutectic freezing point of the first mineral salt is greater than the eutectic freezing point of the second mineral salt as Avco Corp, similar to Bakkenes modified by Shah, teaches a system and method used for the purification of a liquid through freezing. Doing so increases the efficiency of the freezing apparatus as there is less temperature difference of the second solution, creating less freeze-up on the screens within the wash columns. {Avco Corp, page 3 lines 95-110}
Regarding claim 34, Bakkenes modified by Shah fails to teach at least one step of drying the recovered crystallised mineral salts.
Avco Corp teaches at least one step of drying the recovered crystallised mineral salts. {Page 3 lines 90-92, "to obtain dissolved or suspended solids in dry form"}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bakkenes modified by Shah with Avco Corp’s teachings of at least one step of drying the recovered crystallised mineral salts doing so would avoids further freeze up on the screen, as the material lacks moisture, keeping it from freezing up on the screens of the wash columns. {Avco Corp, page 3 lines 90-95}
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bakkenes (US20110129409A1) modified by Shah (US4666484A), as applied above, in view of Elshafei (US20170166461A1).
Regarding claim 33, Bakkenes modified by Shah, fails to teach the step of extracting hydrogen from the brines by electrolysis.
Elshafei, drawn to a desalination system, teaches the step of extracting hydrogen from the brines by electrolysis. {Page 9 paragraph 80, "the electrical current that flows from the positive electrode to the negative electrode electrolyzes the brine that results in the formation of the hydrogen … the hydrogen gas may be removed from the chamber"}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bakkenes modified by Shah, with Elshafei’s teachings the step of extracting hydrogen from the brines by electrolysis as Elshafei, similar to Bakkenes modified by Shah, teaches a desalination system. Elshafei’s invention can recycle the brine solution with its generated electrical current, instead of disposing it as waste, to produce hydrogen and other industrial products that have beneficial uses. {Elshafei, page 10 paragraph 87}
Conclusion
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 CONNOR J ROTONDI whose telephone number is (571)272-2058. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:30pm.
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 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.
/CONNOR J ROTONDI/Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights